A petition on the Prime Minister's website re Madeleine McCann was set up on 22 October last year.The chances of getting much detail about a live investigation is probably as good a definition of zero as it gets.
It simply calls for the Home Secretary to provide a report to the public on what the £12million-plus and 5-year-long Operation Grange investigation has actually achieved.
Are we any the wiser about what really happened to her...who took her...or where she was taken?
Prime Minister petitions last for 6 months. Today is the half-way stage. The petition will close on 22 April.
So far, 1,161 have signed it. More details here, where you can also add your signature:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
A petition on the Prime Minister's website re Madeleine McCann was set up on 22 October last year.
It simply calls for the Home Secretary to provide a report to the public on what the £12million-plus and 5-year-long Operation Grange investigation has actually achieved.
Are we any the wiser about what really happened to her...who took her...or where she was taken?
Prime Minister petitions last for 6 months. Today is the half-way stage. The petition will close on 22 April.
So far, 1,161 have signed it. More details here, where you can also add your signature:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
That is an true indication of the support the sceptic movement has
LOL ... the petition was doomed to failure from the word go. All it has achieved is an illustration of how few sceptics there are in reality since the drive has been going on for months.
Seeking to publicise it using a thread on this forum is a bit pointless as any with a mind to sign have probably already done so and the wider audience who stumble upon our pages from time to time are possibly far too sensible.
One wonders at this constant need to impede in any way whatsoever the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
One doesn't have to wonder cui bono.
Does it illustrate how few 'sceptic' there are ? I'm a 'sceptic' and I haven't signed it.
What was it Anthony Summers said about the McCann's account of that night.....ah yes :
"We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"
I'm sure very few of those people signed the petition either.
Does it illustrate how few 'sceptic' there are ? I'm a 'sceptic' and I haven't signed it.cite for the quote
What was it Anthony Summers said about the McCann's account of that night.....ah yes :
"We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"
I'm sure very few of those people signed the petition either.
Petitions to the UK government have become rather meaningless these days. Just take the anti Trump one which attracted well over half a million signatures in little over a few weeks. Does anyone really believe that the British Government would ban a man who could well become the President of the United States of America from visiting these hallowed shores?
It would be interesting to know how many of those signatories are of foreign origin?
cite for the quote
As usual there is a marked reluctance to offer a cite -
“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account and – and we started to think we could bring something to this almost unique story by drilling down to the best evidence. Our publisher agreed. That’s how it started, and here we are more than two years later.”
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/27-features/legal/3409-summers-and-swan-reply-to-critics-of-their-madeleine-book
That's fair enough.
At the getgo S & S state "people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"
then:
"That’s how it started, and here we are more than two years later.”
How many of the many many have changed their minds since reading the book ?. Have we been told? (with a cite of course and the method of measurement) ?{)(**
The Petition has worth in principle as it would be good to know what SY have achieved after all this time and money has been spent on the search for those responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
A good starting point may be "how many have read the book"? 8(0(*
Random thoughts:
Is that "read it" or "say they have read it"?
I have read it but haven't signed the petition.....nor am I likely to sign it.
By the time the petition times out O.G will probably have been wound up.
When we have this information what will we do with it anyway ?
It looks like an exercise in futility.
You have? Good grief!
I would suggest its a close run thing between readers of the book and the hen harrier.
The readers may just shade the pink pigeon.
As usual there is a marked reluctance to offer a cite -
“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account and – and we started to think we could bring something to this almost unique story by drilling down to the best evidence. Our publisher agreed. That’s how it started, and here we are more than two years later.”
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/27-features/legal/3409-summers-and-swan-reply-to-critics-of-their-madeleine-book
Not a marked reluctance JP. I have davel on ignore so didn't see his request.
a marked reluctance to answer any of my searching questions
cite for the quote
“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"
Summers and Swan.
“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"The one thing this world is not short of is people who aren't very bright, and who cannot think logically or rationally.
Summers and Swan.
The one thing this world is not short of is people who aren't very bright, and who cannot think logically or rationally.
“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account"
Summers and Swan.
The one thing this world is not short of is people who aren't very bright, and who cannot think logically or rationally.
The one thing this world is not short of is people who aren't very bright, and who cannot think logically or rationally.
Amen to that 8(0(*So we're agreed then that that is the reason why so many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents account. In much the same way as over half of all Americans think their own government was behind 9/11 - stupidity and / or a desperate desire to buy into some deep dark conspiracy, by disregarding logic and rationality.
Since "Blonk" posted a link to this petition 24 new signatures have been added, which must fill Tony Bennett's heart with gladness, however as the closing date is 26th April 2016 even at an average rate of say 10 new signatures a day, there is not a hope in hell of the petition reaching the first benchmark total of 10,000 signatures. So I think we can safely predict another failure for Mr Bennett.
What on earth is the rationale behind raising a petition about the ongoing investigation into the case of a missing child?The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.
If I didn't know better I would be thinking the fact there is an active investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is coming between some people and their rest.
The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.
There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best.
On the other hand, there is a growing number who have come to realise that Grange is a hugely expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense, designed purely to continue to influence public perception on the case. Such people may or may not support the petition depending on whether they think it will achieve anything.
But, well, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
I suspect most of those who have signed have little hope that anything of value will be achieved by it. G-Unit summed this up as follows: "I don't see the point of the petition as the investigation is still 'live'. On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved".
However, to date 1,322 have cheerfully signed it, a small way of registering a protest, perhaps, at the Operation Grange sham. If that is classed as 'failure' by many of the good members of this forum, well...I can live with that
The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.
There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best.
On the other hand, there is a growing number who have come to realise that Grange is a hugely expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense, designed purely to continue to influence public perception on the case. Such people may or may not support the petition depending on whether they think it will achieve anything.
But, well, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
I suspect most of those who have signed have little hope that anything of value will be achieved by it. G-Unit summed this up as follows: "I don't see the point of the petition as the investigation is still 'live'. On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved".
However, to date 1,322 have cheerfully signed it, a small way of registering a protest, perhaps, at the Operation Grange sham. If that is classed as 'failure' by many of the good members of this forum, well...I can live with that
Sham is not a good word in this instance. Have a care, if you please.I looked up the meaning of 'sham' in the dictionary.
That gives me some hope for the rationality of the Great British Public whose lives do not revolve around internet campaigns ... in particular those apparently designed to throw a spoke into the vehicle searching for a missing little girl.What progress has this 'vehicle' made so far? It has certainly made a great deal of noise. Has the vehicle actually moved at all? How much actual progress has it made in identifying who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance? Or where she is?
What progress has this 'vehicle' made so far? It has certainly made a great deal of noise. Has the vehicle actually moved at all? How much actual progress has it made in identifying who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance? Or where she is?
Alternatively, perhaps the vehicle HAS moved.
But in completely the wrong direction...
What progress has this 'vehicle' made so far? It has certainly made a great deal of noise. Has the vehicle actually moved at all? How much actual progress has it made in identifying who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance? Or where she is?
Alternatively, perhaps the vehicle HAS moved.
But in completely the wrong direction...
The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?
There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best.
On the other hand, there is a growing number who have come to realise that Grange is a hugely expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense, designed purely to continue to influence public perception on the case. Such people may or may not support the petition depending on whether they think it will achieve anything.
But, well, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
I suspect most of those who have signed have little hope that anything of value will be achieved by it. G-Unit summed this up as follows: "I don't see the point of the petition as the investigation is still 'live'. On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved".
However, to date 1,322 have cheerfully signed it, a small way of registering a protest, perhaps, at the Operation Grange sham. If that is classed as 'failure' by many of the good members of this forum, well...I can live with that
Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?
illuminati ?I meant besides them.
What progress has this 'vehicle' made so far? It has certainly made a great deal of noise. Has the vehicle actually moved at all? How much actual progress has it made in identifying who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance? Or where she is?
Alternatively, perhaps the vehicle HAS moved.
But in completely the wrong direction...
It has made a great deal more progress than any of the shenanigans which have occurred over the past nine years in attempts to obstruct in every and in any way humanly ??? possible anything which might progress finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
The 1,322 signatories to your petition suggest to me that despite your best efforts over the years you do not enjoy popular support.
Why you feel driven to interfere in a long time coming active investigation into the case of a missing child in any way whatsoever is a matter for your conscience.
The contempt I hold your effort in is a matter for mine and I am very comfortable with it.
Perhaps it behoves you to remember that Madeleine McCann enjoys the human right to have everything possible done to find out what happened to her on the 3rd May 2007 in Luz.
As long as Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria can confirm and justify to their political masters that they have active lines of inquiry to follow (who in the case of SY it is your stated intention to intimidate) the demand to know anything at all about it is a step beyond arrogance.
"On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved"
It is about time to consider that you do not have the right to know anything at all about the progress of an active criminal investigation.
Whether into the case of a missing child or anything else for that matter.
It has made a great deal more progress than any of the shenanigans which have occurred over the past nine years in attempts to obstruct in every and in any way humanly ??? possible anything which might progress finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
The 1,322 signatories to your petition suggest to me that despite your best efforts over the years you do not enjoy popular support.
Why you feel driven to interfere in a long time coming active investigation into the case of a missing child in any way whatsoever is a matter for your conscience.
The contempt I hold your effort in is a matter for mine and I am very comfortable with it.
Perhaps it behoves you to remember that Madeleine McCann enjoys the human right to have everything possible done to find out what happened to her on the 3rd May 2007 in Luz.
As long as Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria can confirm and justify to their political masters that they have active lines of inquiry to follow (who in the case of SY it is your stated intention to intimidate) the demand to know anything at all about it is a step beyond arrogance.
"On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved"
It is about time to consider that you do not have the right to know anything at all about the progress of an active criminal investigation.
Whether into the case of a missing child or anything else for that matter.
Do you have anything which demonstrates the words I have bolded? As far as I know we have no idea what progress has been made, if any.
Do you have anything which demonstrates the words I have bolded? As far as I know we have no idea what progress has been made, if any.
Do you have anything which demonstrates the words I have bolded? As far as I know we have no idea what progress has been made, if any.
Would Portuguese judicial secrecy having anything to do with it, do you think?
Good morning. Surely Brietta is quoting this sentence from Blonk's post who in turn was quoting your post.
If I am wrong I apologise and will return to reading only for another year.
Good morning. Surely Brietta is quoting this sentence from Blonk's post who in turn was quoting your post.
If I am wrong I apologise and will return to reading only for another year.
You are quite correct, Erngath. Another example of manipulation of Poster's comments.
Apart from that, Sham, Charade and Farce regarding Operation Grange, in the absence of Cites, is not up for debate.
It is not libelous Eleanor, to give an opinion of a Police Investigation.
It is done in the press.
It is also merely demonstrating an opinion.
Also, by your logic, any criticism of the original investigation by any of the words 'Sham, Charade and Farce' can't be allowed.
You can't have double standards on this, and I know what your views are on the original investigation
Forum Rules, Stephen, so don't you start.
The failures of the PJ Investigation are well documented, including by Amaral himself. Do you have any such documented proof of failures by Operation Grange?
Meanwhile, this Petition is yet another failure, obvious by it's total lack of support.
What forum rules don't allow a criticism of a police investigation ?
You have regularly criticized the original Portuguese one.
The 'failures' of the investigation in Portugal are also a matter of opinion.
and Operation Grange has been criticized in the press.
Now, you tell me what it has achieved exactly.
I don't know what Operation Grange has achieved, and nor do you. And another ridiculous petition for another ridiculous enquiry isn't going to alter that.
This the last I shall say on the blatant criticism of Operation Grange, which has no foundation, Cites or justification.
I don't know what Operation Grange has achieved, and nor do you. And another ridiculous petition for another ridiculous enquiry isn't going to alter that.
This the last I shall say on the blatant criticism of Operation Grange, which has no foundation, Cites or justification.
Could I point out that there is little to criticise if anything since Operation Grange hasn't reported anything. It is one of two things, an abject and total failure or a very tight operation clad in secrecy. Yous pay your money and yous take your pick as they say down here.LOL. That hasn't stopped you though has it?
LOL. That hasn't stopped you though has it?
Could I point out that there is little to criticise if anything since Operation Grange hasn't reported anything. It is one of two things, an abject and total failure or a very tight operation clad in secrecy. Yous pay your money and yous take your pick as they say down here.
Thank you Eleanor and Brietta. The many years of "doing corrections" has its benefits. It does make one observant and pay attention to detail.
Having looked at the map of the constituencies on the petition and noted the number of signatures in each of the Scottish constituencies can I add the following figures.
In the city of Glasgow there are 15 signatures.
In the city of Edinburgh there are 10.
Many constituencies have nil, one, two or three signatures
Two have nine.
The figure for Scotland is 125 signatures approx.
These may have altered since I checked but not exactly a resounding success so far.
You said it was in the forum rules not to criticize a police investigation.
Now can you provide a cite for that ?
Again, giving an opinion is not libelous.
Read The Forum Rules, Stephen.
As to the petition, IMO, a waste of time.
I have not signed it, or will sign it.
I had an e-mail as regards it yesterday, which was promptly deleted.
I'm not sure if our reasons are the same, but I agree with you.
Off to have a quiet lie-down.
Just to set the record straight, Brietta said the SY investigation
It has made a great deal more progress than any of the shenanigans which have occurred over the past nine years in attempts to obstruct in every and in any way humanly ??? possible anything which might progress finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
I just wondered how she knows how much progress it has made, or is that just her opinion?
so posters can post whatever unfounded speculation they wishMay I ask where these rules reside?
The rules of this forum are very straightforward. Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.
This, second, enquiry is being conducted the way the first one should have been and (latterly, under Rebelo) broadly was.
Thank you Eleanor and Brietta. The many years of "doing corrections" has its benefits. It does make one observant and pay attention to detail.
Having looked at the map of the constituencies on the petition and noted the number of signatures in each of the Scottish constituencies can I add the following figures.
In the city of Glasgow there are 15 signatures.
In the city of Edinburgh there are 10.
Many constituencies have nil, one, two or three signatures
Two have nine.
The figure for Scotland is 125 signatures approx.
These may have altered since I checked but not exactly a resounding success so far.
We can agree occasionally Carana.
It's not against the law.
Just to set the record straight, Brietta said the SY investigation
It has made a great deal more progress than any of the shenanigans which have occurred over the past nine years in attempts to obstruct in every and in any way humanly ??? possible anything which might progress finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
I just wondered how she knows how much progress it has made, or is that just her opinion?
May I ask where these rules reside?
I thought the rules were the ones written at the top of every forum page, namely
"* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!"
Have I got this wrong?
Indeed, how would she know ?
What? By downsizing and fading away!
"She" keeps up to date with the ongoing investigation and making the presumption that they have worked and waded their way through the one hundred and ninety five ignored leadshich enables them to get on from there.
Like Eleanor I am beside myself to know what stage their active inquiry is at. Certainly not enough to attempt to prejudice it in any way ... patience being a virtue ... I can wait.
In the interim ... I am wishing them all the best.
One hundred and ninety five potential leads, I think the phrase was. Seven visits to Portugal, eight days of digging, one visit to Switzerland..............No stones left unturned by now, surely?
May I ask where these rules reside?
I thought the rules were the ones written at the top of every forum page, namely
"* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!"
Have I got this wrong?
Do you mean who I think you mean, or do you mean someone else ? &%+((£
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.In case you hadn't noticed neither Tony Blair, nor the Labour Party are currently in government, nor were they when Op Grange was set up, but never mind, you must have been delighted by recent news of the discovery of a dragon in Wales. @)(++(*
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
"Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'.
Which mod on here was saying not long ago that speculation wasn't allowed?
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
Interesting the way that (marginal) tweaking of words can change an entire context.
Compare only allowed (to investigate)
with
only (investigating)
Hmmmm!
The Portuguese have primacy in the investigation (just as first time around) ....
I can't be bothered to find all the petitions to get the case reopened when it was assumed in certain quarters that the McCanns would automatically become arguidos again... but they have since launched other petitions to get it shut down once it finally dawned on them that this wasn't the case.
One might question whether they ever really wanted to support finding a missing child.
And who pushed hardest to get the case re-opened?
Oh yes, the McCanns.
Strange that ....
To be strictly accurate they never, as far as I know, asked for the original case to be re-opened, which they could have done. They asked for a review to be undertaken in the UK, which is not re-opening anything.Why do you think they were so desperate for a review?
To be strictly accurate they never, as far as I know, asked for the original case to be re-opened, which they could have done. They asked for a review to be undertaken in the UK, which is not re-opening anything.
Why do you think they were so desperate for a review?
No, they could not have done because they had no new evidence. Please don't try to change that.
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
For information:
The Policia Judiciaria carried out their own two year investigation into the available evidence on Madeleine McCann's case and have independently arrived at very much the same place that Operation Grange's investigation into the available evidence led them.
That is ... both the law enforcement agencies of Portugal and the United Kingdom have studied Madeleine McCann's case and both have reached the conclusion that Madeleine McCann was abducted on the 3rd May 2007.
If you disparage the Scotland Yard investigation you also denigrate the Policia Judiciaria investigation both of which had the same starting point and both of which reached the same destination ... that of abduction.
In my opinion your petition is a mistake ... one in a lengthy line of mistakes ... but do remember it is not only Scotland Yard you are insulting with the suggestions you have made in your posts on this forum ... by association and inference you are insulting the Policia Judiciaria who are working on the same case, using the same evidence and who are also looking for the perpetrator/s of the crime against Madeleine McCann which they have ascertained from the evidence ... is abduction.
23.10.2013 18:19 PJ quer reabrir caso Maddie
Autoridades portuguesas investigam nova pista que deverá levar à reabertura do processo do desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann.
As autoridades portuguesas ponderam reabrir o processo de desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, na sequência da análise feita pela PJ do Porto ao longo dos últimos dois anos. A investigação deverá ficar a cargo da PJ de Faro e consistirá, para já, na inquirição de mais testemunhas. O Correio da Manhã sabe que a tese seguida será a de rapto e poderá haver diligências comuns às que foram pedidas pelos ingleses. Na última semana o caso conheceu novos desenvolvimentos, principalmente com a divulgação do retrato robô http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/saiba-como-e-o-suspeito-prioritario-no-caso-maddie.html
do principal suspeito e a nova pista que, tudo aponta, deverá levar à reabertura do processo para saber o que aconteceu a Maddie na noite de 3 de Maio de 2007, na Praia da Luz.
The Portuguese authorities are considering reopening the disappearance of Madeleine McCann process , following the analysis by PJ Port over the past two years.
The investigation shall be borne by the PJ in Faro and consist , for now, in the hearing of witnesses .
The Correio da Manha know that the next thesis will be to kidnapping and there may be common to steps that were ordered by the British.
Last week the case met new developments , especially with the release of the picture Robot prime suspect and the new track that , everything points , should lead to the reopening of the case to find out what happened to Maddie on the night of May 3, 2007 , Praia da Luz .
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/pj-quer-reabrir-caso-maddie.html
The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.
There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best.
On the other hand, there is a growing number who have come to realise that Grange is a hugely expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense, designed purely to continue to influence public perception on the case. Such people may or may not support the petition depending on whether they think it will achieve anything.
But, well, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
I suspect most of those who have signed have little hope that anything of value will be achieved by it. G-Unit summed this up as follows: "I don't see the point of the petition as the investigation is still 'live'. On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved".
However, to date 1,322 have cheerfully signed it, a small way of registering a protest, perhaps, at the Operation Grange sham. If that is classed as 'failure' by many of the good members of this forum, well...I can live with that
Blonk: "There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best."
"What we sought to do is try and draw everything back to zero," said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood. "Try and take everything back to the beginning and re-analyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing.
http://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-police-timeline-of-critical-90-minutes-changed
If you take everything back to zero, how can that be a "strictly limited" remit?
Er, he didn't say 'take' everything back to zero. He said 'draw'. Nor did he say he would 'start from zero'. He said he would draw 'everything' back to zero. That is quite a big task. He says he would get hold of 'everything'. And then drew everything back to zero. A bit like reversing the 'Big Bang', for those who believe there was a 'Big Bang'.
But, OK, let's ignore Redwood's meaningless piffle that speaks of 'drawing everything back to zero'. Let us assume that he actually meant 'starting from scratch', or, 'going back to Square One', or 'starting with a blank sheet of paper' etc.
In that case, he would have, as they say, 'ruled nothing in and ruled nothing out'.
But he couldn't do that. Because the true Head of Operation Grange, Redwood's boss, Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, the man some suspect of fitting up Barry George/Bulsara for the murder of Jill Dando, gave him strict orders:
"YOUR REMIT IS TO INVESTIGATE THE ABDUCTION"
REPLY: It would appear from your question that we take quite a different view of the evidence provided by one of the world's top dog handlers, Martin Grime. His dogs alerted to corpse odour or blood in 17 places associated with the McCanns in Praia da Luz, including four locations in their holiday apartment.
What is your assessment of the significance of that evidence?
Do you agree with Dr Gerald McCann's assessment that cadaver dogs are 'incredibly unreliable'?
Or do you agree with Dr Kate McCann's assessment ('madeleine', p. 250) that these were, quote: "False alerts, attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler"?
We all knew the petition would "achieve nothing" being framed on the back of the damp squib stirred by expenditure on looking for Madeleine and extinguished entirely when the announcement was made that SY had cleared the backlog and were progressing the case with a much reduced personnel needed to take part.
Mistiming on a monumental scale for a doomed petition because the majority are keen to find out ...
(a) what happened to Madeleine
(b) who would be absolutely delighted were she to be found alive.
People really do care about the rights of this child and wish her nothing but well.
What the motives of the signatories to the campaign questioning the vehicle making the investigation into Madeleine's case may be is for them to contemplate.
How many of these 8@??)( did you award to a post on this thread which particularly appealed to you?
Here is a question McCann supporters have repeatedly ducked.Not sure about the 'two logical possibilities', but what needs to established is:
If Madeleine were to be alive, where would she be ?
There are of course 2 logical possibilities which has been mentioned before.
Would you care to answer ?
I have a question that perhaps Blonk could pass on to Mr Bennett in the event that he may know.Most curious. Is this information regarding who has signed this petition? If so it already seems to have the backing of most of the House of Commons including Jeremy Corbyn! @)(++(*
At the bottom of the petition page, there is a link that says get "petition data", which is here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562.json
What exactly does "signature count" mean?
Numerous people, including a number of people signed as MPs, have a "signature count" exceeding 1.
I can't work out quite what that means...
Most curious. Is this information regarding who has signed this petition? If so it already seems to have the backing of most of the House of Commons including Jeremy Corbyn! @)(++(*
I have a question that perhaps Blonk could pass on to Mr Bennett in the event that he may know.
At the bottom of the petition page, there is a link that says get "petition data", which is here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562.json
What exactly does "signature count" mean?
Numerous people, including a number of people signed as MPs, have a "signature count" exceeding 1.
I can't work out quite what that means...
Most curious. Is this information regarding who has signed this petition? If so it already seems to have the backing of most of the House of Commons including Jeremy Corbyn! @)(++(*
Another question, at what point does someone have to check whether all the signatories are in fact UK citizens or residents?
I doubt it's checked in fine detail. It probably runs on an "honesty box" principle. No doubt obvious ringers are thrown out, but do you really think every email address will be checked? Check every one in one hundred maybe. I guess there must somekind of coarse screening to prevent New Guinea land divers influencing things just for a laugh.
The detail of signatures seems to be text detail of the graphic on the map.
6&%5%
The rationale behind the petition depends on your view of Operation Grange.
There are still some who believe that Operation Grange is an honest-to-goodness, full-hearted, no-holds-barred, without fear or favour, search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Even though it began with a strictly limited remit. Such people will regard this petition as inappropriate and pointless at best.
On the other hand, there is a growing number who have come to realise that Grange is a hugely expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense, designed purely to continue to influence public perception on the case. Such people may or may not support the petition depending on whether they think it will achieve anything.
But, well, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
I suspect most of those who have signed have little hope that anything of value will be achieved by it. G-Unit summed this up as follows: "I don't see the point of the petition as the investigation is still 'live'. On the plus side it may serve as a reminder the Prime Minister that the money spent on Operation Grange wasn't his money and that the general public may have a legitimate interest in being informed as to what it has achieved".
However, to date 1,322 have cheerfully signed it, a small way of registering a protest, perhaps, at the Operation Grange sham. If that is classed as 'failure' by many of the good members of this forum, well...I can live with that
PETITION SIGNERS: 1,488 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Er, he didn't say 'take' everything back to zero. He said 'draw'. Nor did he say he would 'start from zero'. He said he would draw 'everything' back to zero. That is quite a big task. He says he would get hold of 'everything'. And then drew everything back to zero. A bit like reversing the 'Big Bang', for those who believe there was a 'Big Bang'.
But, OK, let's ignore Redwood's meaningless piffle that speaks of 'drawing everything back to zero'. Let us assume that he actually meant 'starting from scratch', or, 'going back to Square One', or 'starting with a blank sheet of paper' etc.
In that case, he would have, as they say, 'ruled nothing in and ruled nothing out'.
But he couldn't do that. Because the true Head of Operation Grange, Redwood's boss, Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, the man some suspect of fitting up Barry George/Bulsara for the murder of Jill Dando, gave him strict orders:
"YOUR REMIT IS TO INVESTIGATE THE ABDUCTION"
I would only add that I believe I have much evidence, falling short of 'proof' I fully concede, that Operation Grange is a sham. Very rarely does a genuine reinvestigation have a strictly limited remit. This one did. It is only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'. As yet, just as we have no 'proof' that Operation Grange is a sham, we also have no 'proof' that Madeleine McCann was abducted. It is obvious that there are other possibilities, just as the Portuguese authorities stated when shelving the investigation back in July 2008.
Alfred R Jones wrote: "Have you worked out a logical and plausible reason for why the govt would agree to shell out £11m to knowingly perpetuate a sham in the case of a missing child?" REPLY: Yes. I worked that out when after just a few days the Head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit was appointed to take charge of a mammoth international PR exercise on behalf of the McCanns. I knew then that 'something was up'. Something big. And not a thing since then has changed my view.
Tonight the number of signers of the petition has crawled up to 1,460. A subject no doubt of more mirth, scorn and ridicule from some.
But THANK YOU to anyone on here who has signed it, and all the 1,460 who have done so to date 8((()*/
Back to the topic of the thread, I'm still curious as to why some people find Op Grange to be "a hugely expensive charade" or a "sham".Something to do with Tony Blair according to Mr "Blonk".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6975.msg303262#msg303262
Back to the topic of the thread, I'm still curious as to why some people find Op Grange to be "a hugely expensive charade" or a "sham".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6975.msg303262#msg303262
Could it be the fact that to date it appears to have been an abject failure, a fools errand, a complete waste of time, money and resources which would have been better spent fighting identifiable crime in London instead of chasing ghosts in Portugal?
it wasn't funded by the Met budget, but by a Home Office slush fund.
Could it be the fact that to date it appears to have been an abject failure, a fools errand, a complete waste of time, money and resources which would have been better spent fighting identifiable crime in London instead of chasing ghosts in Portugal?
It is still tax payers money.
It could be all those things but what is the evidence for it being a sham
it wasn't funded by the Met budget, but by a Home Office slush fund.
According to the OP
"It simply calls for the Home Secretary to provide a report to the public on what the £12million-plus and 5-year-long Operation Grange investigation has actually achieved.
Are we any the wiser about what really happened to her...who took her...or where she was taken?"
A number of people may sign it out of a genuine interest in an update.
However, from further posts, that doesn't appear to be the purpose...
Steady on! when I used the term slush fund on the self same topic a fair while ago the supporters piled in like it was a game of British Bulldog @)(++(*
Are SY limited to what they can say due to the Portuguese
You assert that:
- you have evidence that it's a sham;
- that it was "only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'."
What are you basing those assertions on?
Steady on! when I used the term slush fund on the self same topic a fair while ago the supporters piled in like it was a game of British Bulldog @)(++(*
According to whom?
Steady on! when I used the term slush fund on the self same topic a fair while ago the supporters piled in like it was a game of British Bulldog @)(++(*cite?
Snip
One really positive outcome from the libel action taken against Goncalo Amaral was the admittance by Ricardo Paiva that information which had continued to be submitted to the Policia Judiciaria had been filed by him as "not relevant to the inquiry". All of it ???
Snip
A review which demonstrated the incompetence of initial investigation would perhaps have also demonstrated that the PJ were wrong to suspect the parents.It might also have had the opposite effect - bit of a risky game to be playing, eh?
April 2008
Kate and Gerry are also calling for a full probe involving the FBI into Portuguese cops’ handling of the case.
They want a panel of missing children experts, including former US and Met police, to look at how the inquiry team handled itself.
Officers have been accused of bungling the investigation since Maddie, four, went missing from Praia da Luz last May.
Last night their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “We believe Portuguese police have been found wanting. We are asking the British Government to call for such an inquiry. It’s important for Madeleine and other missing children.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/madeleine/1037189/News-Maddie-Madeleine-McCann-The-McCanns-want-an-FBI-probe.html
I think assumptions are made without letting the facts get in the way.
If a modicum of common sense were used it would be apparent that Operation Grange is only a step in the process of the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance and not the genesis.
The police inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance was shelved in 2008. It took her parents two years to get anywhere near towards having her case reviewed with the purpose of having it reopened.
One really positive outcome from the libel action taken against Goncalo Amaral was the revelation by Ricardo Paiva that information which had continued to be submitted to the Policia Judiciaria had been filed by him as "not relevant to the inquiry". All of it ???
A lot of work went on to get to where we are today in the search for a child that officialdom hasn't seemed too keen to look for. Which makes the constant chipping at it when the long overdue investigation is at last in progress all the more remarkable. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would wish to do that.
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick 9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said: "The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France.
The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.
The review – were it to go ahead – would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction across other European forces.
The Portuguese police have been heavily criticised for their handling of the case which led to detectives naming the McCanns, both doctors from Leicestershire, as arguidos – or suspects – in the case and accusing them of involvement in her disappearance.
Their arguido status was subsequently lifted and the police investigation shelved.
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment. He led the cash for honours investigation and was also involved in a new inquiry into the murder of Julie Ward, who was murdered in Kenya in 1988.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/remember-this-november-2010/
The original remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK.
I would have thought the remit would have said they should investigate the disappearance.
Because the remit said 'abduction' does that mean that only one possible cause of Madeleine's disappearance was to be investigated?
Did Operation Grange have a different name when it was just a review, as opposed to when it became an investigation?
I think assumptions are made without letting the facts get in the way.
If a modicum of common sense were used it would be apparent that Operation Grange is only a step in the process of the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance and not the genesis.
The police inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance was shelved in 2008. It took her parents two years to get anywhere near towards having her case reviewed with the purpose of having it reopened.
One really positive outcome from the libel action taken against Goncalo Amaral was the revelation by Ricardo Paiva that information which had continued to be submitted to the Policia Judiciaria had been filed by him as "not relevant to the inquiry". All of it ???
A lot of work went on to get to where we are today in the search for a child that officialdom hasn't seemed too keen to look for. Which makes the constant chipping at it when the long overdue investigation is at last in progress all the more remarkable. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would wish to do that.
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick 9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said: "The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France.
The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.
The review – were it to go ahead – would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction across other European forces.
The Portuguese police have been heavily criticised for their handling of the case which led to detectives naming the McCanns, both doctors from Leicestershire, as arguidos – or suspects – in the case and accusing them of involvement in her disappearance.
Their arguido status was subsequently lifted and the police investigation shelved.
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment. He led the cash for honours investigation and was also involved in a new inquiry into the murder of Julie Ward, who was murdered in Kenya in 1988.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/remember-this-november-2010/
No. I have attached the remit.
Thanks. So Op Grange was the term used prior to the launching of the investigation.
I also found this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22918857
There had been a lengthy review prior to launching the investigation.
That review presumably involved clearing the ground under their feet as far as possible (including the forensic timeline) in the event that any of the T9 had been involved.
PT had also launched a review, then relaunched its own investigation.
To date, there have been various leads to follow (whether old ones that hadn't been thoroughly considered, or new ones). None appear to involve the T9.
I think the logical conclusion is that the groundwork had been completed to ensure there was no complicity of either her parents or their friends in Madeleine's disappearance.
Don't tell me that Theresa May ... who possibly sees herself as future prime ministerial material ... was going to lend her name to any such endeavour without it having been thoroughly checked and without making certain sure that all the boxes had been ticked.
You assert that:G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.
- you have evidence that it's a sham;
- that it was "only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'."
What are you basing those assertions on?
I think the logical conclusion is that the groundwork had been completed to ensure there was no complicity of either her parents or their friends in Madeleine's disappearance.The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started
Don't tell me that Theresa May ... who possibly sees herself as future prime ministerial material ... was going to lend her name to any such endeavour without it having been thoroughly checked and without making certain sure that all the boxes had been ticked.
G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.
I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:
(link removed)
Within that article, right at the top, is a link to another relevant article of mine on the same site: 'The Biography of Hamish Campbell'.
Campbell was appointed to head up Operation Grange. His previous greatest claim tofamenotoriety was to utterly botch the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Jill Dando by taking part in fitting up the wrong man - amid accusations that he could have planted the speck of firearms residue that led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara.
To put such a man in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation is just one of many reasons why I regard Grange as a scam and a charade.
And to get back to the petition - which is what we're supposed to be discussing -it's perfectly obvious to me that most people are signing it because their perception (right or wrong) is that the whole 5-year-long Operation Grange has never looked to them like a genuine, honest enquiry.
The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started
The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started
Where has Op Grange stated that it was limited to only investigating an abduction scenario?
This is bleedin' hilarious.
It says in the remit but the remit is unclear as it says two things and the opposing sides have both been playing ducks and drakes, for quite a while, with what the remit really said according to the yarn they wanted to peddle at the time.
Op Grange Remit
"The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
• The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
• UK Law Enforcement agencies,
• Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit".
End
I don't think there can be too much doubt Carana has won the semantic argument hook, line and sinker.
I confess, my regret is the remit isn't limited to abduction.
There's literally nothing else to consider ....
G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.
I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:
(Link removed)
Within that article, right at the top, is a link to another relevant article of mine on the same site: 'The Biography of Hamish Campbell'.
Campbell was appointed to head up Operation Grange. His previous greatest claim tofamenotoriety was to utterly botch the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Jill Dando by taking part in fitting up the wrong man - amid accusations that he could have planted the speck of firearms residue that led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara.
To put such a man in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation is just one of many reasons why I regard Grange as a scam and a charade.
And to get back to the petition - which is what we're supposed to be discussing -it's perfectly obvious to me that most people are signing it because their perception (right or wrong) is that the whole 5-year-long Operation Grange has never looked to them like a genuine, honest enquiry.
I'm not really into semantics unless necessary.
My question is really bog-basic: where is it stated that Op Grange was only allowed to investigate an abduction?
Blonk's whole point appears to be that Op Grange had been limited to only investigating an abduction.
Prior to the launching of that investigation, there had been a two-year review of available evidence to date.
So... I'm still confused as to what Blonk is talking about.
That is covered by the remit quoted; look under the downloads available under "Related Publications" on rhs of link.
The time period is mid 2011.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
I presume blonk is referring to the remit linked.
I think the logical conclusion is that the groundwork had been completed to ensure there was no complicity of either her parents or their friends in Madeleine's disappearance.
Don't tell me that Theresa May ... who possibly sees herself as future prime ministerial material ... was going to lend her name to any such endeavour without it having been thoroughly checked and without making certain sure that all the boxes had been ticked.
The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started
If you recall Theresa May and the head of The MPS were not keen on the idea hence the open letter in The Sun to David Cameron and David Cameron then ordering The Home Sec. and the head of the MPS to just do it and he would arrange funding. Much of the background to this is recorded in the Leveson Inquiry.
Thanks, Alice, I have read both before.
However, I am still waiting for Blonk's evidence that Op Grange could only examine abduction.
I'm not really into semantics unless necessary.
My question is really bog-basic: where is it stated that Op Grange was only allowed to investigate an abduction?
I doubt there is.
That is what I have found so bloody funny about this latest debate.
Blonk says the remit was rigged to allow only investigation into an abduction. Because it is blonk saying it the idea needs to be cited and tied up with a ribbon and even then it's probably rubbish. In the past however (and no I can't be arsed to find it because life's too short) some supporters have been using the very same wording within the remit to demonstrate that SY were only investigating an abduction therefore.........well you can work out the rest.
Ah. OK. I see your point.
My perspective is that two police forces wouldn't have launched investigations when their respective case reviews could have sufficed to find evidence of any involvement of the T9 in whatever happened to this little girl if any existed.
Unless both forces are really playing "the long game", with numerous "aces", it doesn't seem as if the McCanns are still in the firing line.
And that's what some quarters seem to have a hard time accepting.
Just because the McCanns don't appear to be in the firing line, until further notice, why suddenely decide that it's a waste of money to try to find out what happened to a missing child?
I think it may indicate that the missing child was never the focus ... it has always been about the parents.
There was a time when all the Sceptics wished for was that the case should be reopened. But now it has been they don't like that either.
Basically, they just want a Kangaroo Court based on their opinions.
Hardly.
The investigation was supposed to look at the possibilities of what happened to Madeleine.
As I predicted, it merely looked at abduction.
Did I miss where Blonk posted his evidence that Op Grange could only investigate an abduction?
So when did SY investigate the mccanns Carana ?
Perhaps you can provide a cite ?
What do you imagine that two police forces from different countries were doing during their reviews of the case before (re) opening investigations?
I'm not the person insisting that they could only investigate an abduction.
Reviewing files, re-interviewing, and that's about it.
...and of course, trips to the Algarve on the tax payers expense.
G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.
I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:
(Link removed)
What G-unit posted was a download of this:
Metropolitan Police Service
SCD1
Homicide Command
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
3rd May 2007
For the information of all UK law enforcement agencies.
The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.
At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation GRANGE.
All future communication should be sent to the incident room at:-
(snip of contact details)
That does not state that the Met was confined to only the possibility of an abduction, unless it is written in invisible ink.
Thanks. So Op Grange was the term used prior to the launching of the investigation.
I also found this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22918857
There had been a lengthy review prior to launching the investigation.
That review presumably involved clearing the ground under their feet as far as possible (including the forensic timeline) in the event that any of the T9 had been involved.
PT had also launched a review, then relaunched its own investigation.
To date, there have been various leads to follow (whether old ones that hadn't been thoroughly considered, or new ones). None appear to involve the T9.
I think you missed this bit;
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter.
The review was launched in 2011. The remit was produced at the same time. The article you are quoting refers to when the review became an investigation two years later. If the remit was to investigate 'the abduction' then the parents and their friends would not be looked at, would they?
Not quite sure why the link has been removed, but then I don't post here much so I am not aware of the forum rule that required my link to be deleted.
But - so far as the appointment of Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell to lead Operation Grange is concerned - most of what I wrote about him (as I acknowledged in my article) was derived from the mammoth work by crime journalists and police corruption investigators Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn: "THE UNTOUCHABLES: Dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard", which I have on my shelves (Bloomsbury Reader, 2012, 784pp). There is much detail in the book about the controversial wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara and Campbell's part in obtaining that result - he was the Investigating Officer. It was no surprise to me when in May 2011 Campbell was appointed to head up the strange Grange review/investigation.
Carana asked up the thread: "Did I miss where Blonk posted his evidence that Op Grange could only investigate an abduction?"
ANSWER: Yes, you did. Both myself and others on this thread have established beyond peradventure that the remit (decided on by Hamish Campbell by the way) was to "investigate the abduction as if it had happened in the UK". The remit was decided on in the first few weeks of Grange (June/July 2011) and disclosed publicly some months later, after I asked a Freedom of Information Act asking what the remit was. There has been no announcement - and there is no evidence - that the remit has changed since then.
They are still looking for "THE ABDUCTOR". Another recent Freedom of Act question I asked resulted in Grange announcing they've not found Smithman yet. And after the BBC and the Met spent millions on beaming the Crimewatch Special to 7 million viewers...
PETITION SIGNERS NOW: 1,522 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
A scoping exercise preceded the review.
Wasn't there a disclaimer at the bottom of that email response?
REPLY: No. See full reply below.
You actually think SY would disclose whether or not they have identified Smithman?
REPLY: It seems that they are willing to disclose that they have not yet identified him. So presumably they still want the public to find him. In the very unlikely event that he comes forward, or someone lets the police know who he is, the police would clearly want to establish if the child he was carrying was Madeleine or not. If yes, the first we would usually hear of this is that he had been charged. If no, I suspect that an announcement would be made that he had been eliminated.
Ah yes, Mr Gamble's report;Theresa May also held out against setting up this review, leading to Drs Kate and Gerry McCann sniping at her in our mainstream press for months. Which is precisely why, in the second week of May 2011, as the Sun was serialising Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', Rebekah Brooks, then CEO of the Murdoch media empire - which included the Sun - had to (metaphorically speaking) bash Cameron over the head to force him to concede the review.
Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.
This was completed in March 2010, but Mr McCann said current Home Secretary Theresa May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289
Some more information for you...The McCanns are not suspects...All the evidence used to make them arguidos has proved to be innocuousI know.
Not quite sure why the link has been removed, but then I don't post here much so I am not aware of the forum rule that required my link to be deleted.
I know.
I've known that since September 2007.
That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.
Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid
&%+((£
I know.
I've known that since September 2007.
That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.
Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid
&%+((£
I beg to differ.....that comment made one person look utterly stupid and utterly ridiculous...Clarence Mitchell...then again what does he care .....he is paid to lie and spin, look and be a total fool, etc, that's his excuse anyway....eta on the other hand he is not as stupid as not to know it was a most ridiculous statement thereby feeding the substance of the opposite of the statement...if you see what I mean...not the a devils advocate kind of thing, more like a three headed Cerberus monstrosity...
I know.
I've known that since September 2007.
That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.
Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid
&%+((£
They are still looking for "THE ABDUCTOR". Another recent Freedom of Act question I asked resulted in Grange announcing they've not found Smithman yet. And after the BBC and the Met spent millions on beaming the Crimewatch Special to 7 million viewers...You are making assunptions there Blonk.
PETITION SIGNERS NOW: 1,522 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
FALSE8@??)(
(1) The source for this quote is a TV interview
(2) Various versions of this quote appear on anti-McCann websites and discussion forums
(3) In the actual interview, Clarence Mitchell is referring to claims that evidence had been found which proved that Madeleine's body had been in the McCann's hire car.
(4) This was later proved to be false.
The actual Source
The actual source was an interview with Clarence Mitchell on Sky News on 20th September 2007 and is therefore a primary source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1vV33GlsY
The following is a transcript of the relevant portion (starts at approximately 0.25 secs):-
Quote:
"It appears to us that they were looking at one particular set of circumstances and, as I’ve said a number of times already, any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that. Please bear in mind Gerry and Kate have not been accused of anything."
Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078192/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2041
8@??)(
I know.Do you think Clarence Mitchell's word is God in media circles? If so, please explain why you think this.
I've known that since September 2007.
That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.
Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid
&%+((£
[ Edited ]
FALSE
(1) The source for this quote is a TV interview
(2) Various versions of this quote appear on anti-McCann websites and discussion forums
(3) In the actual interview, Clarence Mitchell is referring to claims that evidence had been found which proved that Madeleine's body had been in the McCann's hire car.
(4) This was later proved to be false.
The actual Source
The actual source was an interview with Clarence Mitchell on Sky News on 20th September 2007 and is therefore a primary source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1vV33GlsY
The following is a transcript of the relevant portion (starts at approximately 0.25 secs):-
Quote:
"It appears to us that they were looking at one particular set of circumstances and, as I’ve said a number of times already, any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that. Please bear in mind Gerry and Kate have not been accused of anything."
Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078192/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2041
Please only post comments relative to the Petition, all other content is being moved.
Please note, a new thread to discuss the Chief Prosecutor's Archiving Report and the Trial Judgement in respect of the checking remark will be launched shortly. TY
PETITION SIGNERS NOW 1,537 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Some people on this thread have said that this petition is 'pointless.'
However, despite our inability to use the public media to promote this petition, 1,537 have signed it so far. Do they think it is 'pointless'? I doubt it.
Undoubtedly, many more would sign it if they became aware of it, but we have limited opportunities to promote it.
The petition asks for 'a full report'. It specifically highlights the role of the government and the security services.
I suspect most people, when signing the petition, always knew that the target of 10,000 signatures - which would trigger a government response - was unlikely to be reached.
So why, in that case, have they signed it at all?
I think, because it is one of the few ways they can express their concern. Concern about a 5-year-long, £12 million investigation that began in highly unusual circumstances. Concern that its remit was strictly limited from the start. Concern that it never appeared to have any realistic prospect of finding the alleged abductor. Concern that it has achieved nothing at all and is never likely to.
Then again others are especially interested in why the government and various security services have been all over this case in a major way from the outset. Why? What is their real interest in this case? Maybe some people have signed for that reason.
Whether we get any more signatures or not, we will bring the petition to the Prime Minister's notice after 22 April, when the petition ends.
To put it simply, if it does nothing else, the petition servers as a rallying point for those who have concerns about the case as a whole and the very strange investigations - both private and official - that have gone on to try and solve it.
Again my warm thanks to all who have signed it so far
I agree with the Petition in that Scotland Yard have themselves fuelled controversy by creating a vacuum around the case. They spend over £12 million on a child disappearance case and they think they can palm the public off with the odd crumb?
So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'. Surely not.
Who provided the press/media with all the details of the re-interviews last year ?
So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'. Surely not.
Ask Angelo - apparently he regards those details as 'crumbs' that we are being palmed off with. Do you?
They could have provided more information to the public but I suspect they have failed to unearth anything which is somewhat embarrassing for them. Redwoods departure was all part of the plan to wrap it all up imo.
As you know well Benice, I have no regard for the SY investigation AT ALL.
Yes Stephen I am well aware that you think you know better than SY.
I agree with the Petition in that Scotland Yard have themselves fuelled controversy by creating a vacuum around the case. They spend over £12 million on a child disappearance case and they think they can palm the public off with the odd crumb?
So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'. Surely not.stephen25000 quite rightly referred to details of all the people they were re-interviewing with those utterly farcical sets of 254 pre-prepared rogatory interview questionnaires; IIRC one question was: "Did you kill Madeleine McCann?"
Has there been anything from SY on the investigation other than the announcement that it was being drastically scaled back?NO. Nothing. The general view is that Operation Grange will be wound down completely and 'shelved' before very long.
NO. Nothing. The general view is that Operation Grange will be wound down completely and 'shelved' before very long.
And that when it does, there will prpbably be a short statement saying something like this:
"We have put a Herculaen effort into this"
"We have left no stone unturned"
"Nobody could have done more than we have, and we've used some of the Met's top detectives"
"We have followed x hundred lines of enquiry, checked x tens thousands of documents, checked x thousand mobile phone records. checked out x hundred paedophiles, checked out x dozen suspects and persons of interest..."
"...But are no nearer to finding out what happened to Madeleine".
For anyone who has closely followed each and every one of Redwood's utterances and who saw the Crimewatch McCann Special in 2013, it is likely they may also end up saying something like this:
"We now know - after finding Crecheman - that Madeleine was abducted, possibly by a burglar, between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May. We think he murdered Madeleine. But despite our best efforts, we stlil don't know who this was".
Those who have signed the petition want a much better account than that for what the Met has achieved after five years and £12 million
Do you think that this will be a joint statement by MPS and PJ?NO. This will be SY on its own. I don't think there's a jot of evidence that the PJ have been doing anything active in this investigation since July 2008.
NO. This will be SY on its own. I don't think there's a jot of evidence that the PJ have been doing anything active in this investigation since July 2008.
Yes, they technically 'reopened' their investigation.
They have had several meetings with biscuits with the PJ - with Redwood and his team captured on camera by arrangements with media photographers who made sure that the British public had images of them 'doing something'.
They facilitated Redwood's farcical search of some waste ground - providing guards around the site and a Mark III Alouette top-of-the-range military helicopter for Redwood and his ream to fly around in - again with media photographers tipped off.
They sat in and translated during Scotland Yard's rogatory interviews in 2013.
But nothing else, I think. Indeed press reports spoke of the PJ's utter contempt for Scotland Yard and even spoke of 'open warfare' between the two forces.
I expect the PJ to say merely that they will reopen their investigation if any 'new and credible' evidence turns up.
Which is what they said over 7 years ago in July 2008.
I doubt very much if - despite five years and £12 million - Redwood had - or Wall has - any 'new and credible evidence' to give to the PJ.
NO. This will be SY on its own. I don't think there's a jot of evidence that the PJ have been doing anything active in this investigation since July 2008.
Yes, they technically 'reopened' their investigation.
They have had several meetings with biscuits with the PJ - with Redwood and his team captured on camera by arrangements with media photographers who made sure that the British public had images of them 'doing something'.
They facilitated Redwood's farcical search of some waste ground - providing guards around the site and a Mark III Alouette top-of-the-range military helicopter for Redwood and his ream to fly around in - again with media photographers tipped off.
They sat in and translated during Scotland Yard's rogatory interviews in 2013.
But nothing else, I think. Indeed press reports spoke of the PJ's utter contempt for Scotland Yard and even spoke of 'open warfare' between the two forces.
I expect the PJ to say merely that they will reopen their investigation if any 'new and credible' evidence turns up.
Which is what they said over 7 years ago in July 2008.
I doubt very much if - despite five years and £12 million - Redwood had - or Wall has - any 'new and credible evidence' to give to the PJ.
Can you substantiate this?
Blonk:
"They sat in and translated during Scotland Yard's rogatory interviews in 2013."
- Who, on foreign territory, can conduct interviews?
Blonk: "Indeed press reports spoke of the PJ's utter contempt for Scotland Yard and even spoke of 'open warfare' between the two forces."
- Which press reports? Do any such reports quote an identified PJ source?
The overwhelming majority on this thread are strongly opposed to the petition.
The overwhelming majority on this thread think that the petition is wholly unnecessary because Operation Grange is a totally honest, no holds barred, full and fearless search for the truth.
The overwhelming majority seem to think I have no right to even explain why I am running the petition nor to explain why I suggest that the Scotland Yard investigation is not what it seems.
Our respective positions are well known. This thread has become personal, a kind of one-way interrogation. I can't see this thread shedding much more light on the subject of the petition.
But, once again, thanks to all of you who have bothered to sign it
(snip)
To put it simply, if it does nothing else, the petition servers as a rallying point for those who have concerns about the case as a whole and the very strange investigations - both private and official - that have gone on to try and solve it.
I still don't understand what those concerns actually are...
Me neither. Especially as so many of the 'concerns' and claims previously expressed - have been shown to be erroneous.
Which concerns are erroneous ?
Which concerns are erroneous ?
stephen25000 quite rightly referred to details of all the people they were re-interviewing with those utterly farcical sets of 254 pre-prepared rogatory interview questionnaires; IIRC one question was: "Did you kill Madeleine McCann?"
But over and above that, during late 2012 and most of 2013 we had an endless procession of Scotland Yard-sourced stories, about:
* burglars
* men in a white van
* an Ocean Club staff member with a spare set of keys
* a black bloke from the Cape Verde Islands who once drove a tractor but is now dead
* more burglars
* a smelly bin man
* paedophiles...
..and so on.
They have given a running commentary on their investigation beyond any that I have ever seen in any other investigation here or abroad.
I would pose this question: was all of that leaking something that really advanced their investigation?
Or was it just to influence public perception?
NO. Nothing. The general view is that Operation Grange will be wound down completely and 'shelved' before very long.
And that when it does, there will prpbably be a short statement saying something like this:
"We have put a Herculaen effort into this"
"We have left no stone unturned"
"Nobody could have done more than we have, and we've used some of the Met's top detectives"
"We have followed x hundred lines of enquiry, checked x tens thousands of documents, checked x thousand mobile phone records. checked out x hundred paedophiles, checked out x dozen suspects and persons of interest..."
"...But are no nearer to finding out what happened to Madeleine".
For anyone who has closely followed each and every one of Redwood's utterances and who saw the Crimewatch McCann Special in 2013, it is likely they may also end up saying something like this:
"We now know - after finding Crecheman - that Madeleine was abducted, possibly by a burglar, between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May. We think he murdered Madeleine. But despite our best efforts, we stlil don't know who this was".
Those who have signed the petition want a much better account than that for what the Met has achieved after five years and £12 million
I'm still intrigued as to what Blonk's "concerns" are:
To put it simply, if it does nothing else, the petition servers as a rallying point for those who have concerns about the case as a whole and the very strange investigations - both private and official - that have gone on to try and solve it.
If you're trying to promote a petition, wouldn't it be helpful to explain what they are?
The only concerns I can see is that Blonk is disappointed that the McCann's are not suspects.
Soz.
So, yet again, what are Blonk's concerns?
Why is Blonk promoting a petition on here if he doesn't wish to explain what the concerns actually are?
If the concerns aren't actually explained, anyone could sign up to a petition that the moon is made of blue cheese - and some quite probably do.
Why is Blonk promoting a petition on here if he doesn't wish to explain what the concerns actually are?
If the concerns aren't actually explained, anyone could sign up to a petition that the moon is made of blue cheese - and some quite probably do.
Personally, I'd like to see this topic & link to the petition removed from the forum. It is an insult to Madeleine & an insult to those who are working to solve this case.
Personally, I'd like to see this topic & link to the petition removed from the forum. It is an insult to Madeleine & an insult to those who are working to solve this case.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8((()*/
Yeah, I'm sure that would happen if Kate McCann signed up here.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a genuine search for answers which have as yet not been forthcoming from Scotland Yard. As for being an insult to Maddie, try putting the blame where it deserves to be. Who was it neglected their children and who refused to cooperate with a police investigation??
8@??)( 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8((()*/Hear, Hear.
Personally, I'd like to see this topic & link to the petition removed from the forum. It is an insult to Madeleine & an insult to those who are working to solve this case.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a genuine search for answers which have as yet not been forthcoming from Scotland Yard. As for being an insult to Maddie, try putting the blame where it deserves to be. Who was it neglected their children and who refused to cooperate with a police investigation??
She would have the same rights and obligations as any other member.
You don't believe in free speech then?
so moderators would be free to insult her
if she was on here she would not be special she would be treated the same as anybody else
It is nothing of the sort. It is a genuine search for answers which have as yet not been forthcoming from Scotland Yard. As for being an insult to Maddie, try putting the blame where it deserves to be. Who was it neglected their children and who refused to cooperate with a police investigation??
It's an ongoing investigation, they are not going to give answers and no one should be asking.
Why not ?Because thePJ have said if they discuss the case co operation will cease
Because thePJ have said if they discuss the sad co operation will cease
Why not ?
What do you want them to say?
'Oh we had @@@@@ under surveillance in @@@@@@ it cost @@@@@' We now have @@@@@@under surveillance in @@@@@@ we will try and keep the cost down'. 'We think @@@@@@ had something to do with it and so we are looking for @@@@@@ in @@@@@@'.
For gods sake have a bit of sense.
You seem to forget, all the re-interviews and new interviews of 'persons of interest' was in the press last year.
As to SY, just a couple of months until they wind things up, once and for all.
So who wasn't complying with the Portuguese ? &%+((£
I doubt if they could have kept that secret with the journalists in Portugal.
I very much doubt if they will reveal who they had been watching and following during the investigation, or where they think Madeleine may be.
Even if they wind things up without Madeleine being found, the case will still be open and the investigation will have a bearing on opening it again if new information emerges.
so moderators would be free to insult her
'...or where they think Madeleine may be.'
They clearly haven't a clue where Madeleine might be.
Why do you think they do.
You should read the contradictions between your last few posts.
and remember, the names of witnesses appeared in the UK media.
How do you know they don't know where Madeleine may be? They haven't given any clue as to what they know and what they don't know.
The names of witnesses appeared in the Uk media, they also appeared in the Portuguese media doh!!!
Why single out moderators? There are people on this forum who get disciplined for breaking the rules on a regular basis. I don't think they are all moderators. On the other hand are people who don't break the rules and they get insulted n a regular basis. I assume she would run the same risk of being insulted as anyone else. Would you expect her to receive special treatment?
How do you know they don't know where Madeleine may be? They haven't given any clue as to what they know and what they don't know.
The names of witnesses appeared in the Uk media, they also appeared in the Portuguese media doh!!!
So the details weren't being kept secret, were they.
doh !!
and you really think SY know where Madeleine is ? 8)-)))
I do.
So the details weren't being kept secret, were they.
doh !!
and you really think SY know where Madeleine is ? 8)-)))
On what basis ?
Are you a believer then ?
THAT wasn't kept secret no. Why do you think SY have to send letters asking permission to proceed with some of the investigation Stephen? Do you think the contents of these letters are going to be revealed? Do you think SY are going to tell the people who signed this petition who, what, where? No they won't.
If SY know where Madeleine may be they wont's be saying what they know.
If they know where she may be, it would have been checked out and if she wasn't found, eliminated from their 'inquiries'.
You are really clutching at some very small straws.
Are you serious? If they think they know where she is, where she is would be a very BIG country, and finding her would be a very BIG operation.
Are you serious? If they think they know where she is, where she is would be a very BIG country, and finding her would be a very BIG operation.
Ah I see.
That is why they have scaled back Operation Grange. &%+((£
They scaled back OG as all the heavy work had been done, going through all the files, following up and interviewing those who may have seen Madeleine [sightings] etc. etc.
They now have a small team who are carrying on with the investigation.
Mmm.
So it's no longer a very big operation, and G4S are no longer involved.
Now tell me in real terms, why do you think Madeleine can be found.
Or is it blind belief ?
I see no reason why Madeleine may be found Stephen, why do you think she can't?
After not one trace of her since May the 3 rd 2007 ?
I am grounded in reality and not given to flights of fancy. So you tell me, is she with :
1. A paedophile ?
or
2. A family completely unaware of who she is ?
The three girls found in captivity hadn't been seen for 10 years, yet they were found, you would have written them off, you don't think Ben Needham will be found either do you?
It's easy to say Madeleine won't be found as it is a huge task trying to find her, you are betting on the weak side of the investigation so that you can say 'told you so' isn't that true Stephen? Thing is, even though Madeleine may be dead and that SY may not be able to discover her, there is still hope that she will be found.
As to the other questions, you ask the impossible as you know there isn't an answer, you do this all the time, I wonder why.
I'm a bit confused.
This thread is about a petition being promoted by Blonk.
He, himself, has made it clear who he is... yet his own posts concerning his identity get whooshed, even though describing the UK side of the investigation as a "sham" / "charade" remain.
Whether or not he is "He who must not be named" or the Queen of Sheba, I don't see the point of encouraging the promotion of a petition when the "concerns" underlying creating the petition in the first place haven't been clarified.
Or am I missing something?
To say that Madeleine has not been seen for nine years, may be false, how do any of us know that the sightings of her in Morocco were false? Just because the police couldn't find her, doesn't mean it wasn't her.
You haven't answered the question.
Why do think she is still alive ?
I'm still confused.
Is it allowed for the original poster to explain what this petition is about or not?
Most certainly, blonk can explain all he wants.
Ah, ok. Thanks for that clarification.
I'll therefore wait for Blonk's explanation.
how many times....no one thinks maddie IS but that she MAY be alive..
there is a massive difference
Sorry to disagree, but I am almost certain Madeleine is alive.
I’m happy of course to give reasons for the petition. I have already given some answers up the thread but am happy now, in response to a number of requests, to give more detailed reasons for doubting whether Operation Grange is a genuine search for the truth. And hence why the petition was launched in October.
It is by the way similar to one promoted by Helen Williamson in 2013 which I also briefly promoted on the UK Justice Forum in late 2013.
Before giving my explanation re Operation Grange, let me make a plain statement that I am Tony Bennett. The only reason I’ve not such made a plain statement before is that it was surely plain as a pikestaff from the way I’ve answered questions on the thread so far - to nearly all on this thread anyway - that I was.
I’ve noted that the forum-owner is very strong on the general issue of ‘outing’ members here and I’m sorry if I’ve made his or any Moderator’s job more difficult in this respect.
In dealing with Operation Grange, I’ll divide my reasons between those reasons that were apparent at or near the outset, and those that have arisen since this near five-year-long investigation began.
ORIGINAL REASONS FOR DOUBTING THAT OPETATION GRANGE WAS A GENUINE SERARCH FOR THE TRUTH
1. The strictly limited remit, i.e. only to investigate an abduction. This was pretty clear from Day One, but was later clarified by the Met. In answer to those on the thread who suggest that asking Freedom of Information Act questions on the case is a waste of money, may I pointed out that the precise remit was only dragged out of the Met after three FoI Act questions, one by myself.
2. The clearly political nature of the decision to set up Operation Grange. I know of no other case where a Prime Minister has had to personally order an investigation, whether on our soil or foreign soil. Sometimes a British police force will, with the active co-operation of a foreign government, allow British officers to conduct enquiries in their country. But in this case, the Home Secretary had already and over a substantial period of time (a year) refused the McCanns’ request for a ‘review’. It was clear that David Cameron had to force Theresa May’s hand.
3. The fact that the decision to order a review was effected by a private citizen who lived near to the Prime Minister who was the CEO to (arguably) the world’s most influential media magnate. It is on record, not least during the proceedings of the Leveson enquiry, that it was Rebekah Brooks, one of whose newspapers was very profitably serialising Kate McCann’s book at the time, who twisted David Cameron’s arm into setting up the review. There were credible, sourced reports at the time that Brooks had threatened ‘a week of bad headlines about the Home Secretary’ to get her way. At Leveson she admitted only to ‘persuading’ Cameron. Rebekah and Charlie Brooks live barely 3.5 miles away from David and Samantha Cameron and attend each other’s parties and those of others in the ‘Chipping Norton’ set. Or as it is generally known in that neck of the woods: ‘The Chipping Snorton Set’. Moreover Brooks and Cameron used to go horse riding together
4. The unprecedented nature of a native police force and its government allowing a foreign police to conduct an investigation of its own purported inadequacy.
5. The extreme unlikelihood that this foreign investigation by Grange could yield results any different from those achieved by the combined forces of the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police forces.
6. The appointment of Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell as the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in the case. The SIO sets the goals and parameters of an investigation. Det Chief Insp Redwood was merely the Investigating Officer (IO!) SIO & IO are technical terms used in all British police investigations. Redwood’s role was simply to carry out Campbell’s instructions. Campbell was a major contributor to the bungled investigation into the murder of Jill Dando, by arresting the wrong man: Barry Bulsara/George. He was the architect of sending an innocent man to jail for several years. As soon as I head that Campbell was the SIO, I asked myself for what possible honest reason he had been put in charge of Grange.
SUBSEQUENT REASONS FOR DOUBTING THAT OPETATION GRANGE WAS A GENUINE SERARCH FOR THE TRUTH
7. The effort and expense of producing an age-progressed picture of Madeleine ,aged 9 or 10. I did not see the investigative merit of that and it looked more like an effort in influencing public perception.
8. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special - 1 The purported reconstruction of the events of the holiday and of 3rd May were a one-sided, selective presentation of the available facts. Again the effort appeared to be directed towards influencing public perception and not for investigative purposes
9. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special - 2 I had great doubts as to whether any of the Smith family could realistically have drawn up, together with Henri Exton, the ex-Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, any e-fits of a man they had (a) seen a whole year earlier (b) only for a few seconds at most (c) with his head down (d) and his face partially hidden by the child he was carrying (e) in the dark (f) with what they all admitted was ‘weak’ street lighting and (g) when on 26 May 2007 at Portimao Police station each of the three members of the family frankly stated that “we would not be able to recognise him if we saw him again”
10. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 3 Moreover, Grange issued two e-fits of two quite different-looking men, with differences such as the overall shape of the face, length of nose, length and style of hair, depth of chin etc. At best this seemed highly unudual.
11. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 4 I did not accept the likelihood that a man would take six years to come forward and say: “I am the man that Jane Tanner saw at 9.15pm on 3rd May and whom you have been looking for, for the past six years. The further claim that he was wearing almost identical clothes and his daughter almost identical pyjamas to those worn by the man and child seen by Jane Tanner seemed to add a further layer of improbability to this alleged account.
12. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 5 All in all, I did not consider this programme to have been a genuine investigative exercise. Once again, it seemed much more to do with influencing public perception.
13. Constant leaks and unlikely stories I lost count of the procession of unlikely leads, suspects and stories, placed or leaked by Scotland Yard, which again was totally unlike any police investigation I have ever seen. Just from memory during 2012, 2013 and the early part of 2014 I can recall: (a) the dead, black tractor-driver from the Caper Verde Islands (b)M tales of burglars (c) six British men in a white van (d) an Ocean Club worker who might have had a second set of keys (e) a smelly bin man who had been approaching children in the early hours of the morning (f) more burglars (g) paedophiles who might have been in Praia da Luz I n2007, and so on. Once again, this appeared to me to be much more to do with influencing public perception and not with advancing a genuine investigation
14. Playing to the gallery A constant procession of photo opportunities – especially around the activities of Operation Grange officers. Always, it seemed, the press and photographers had been briefed in advance as to where and when they could capture photographs that would look good in the British press; the police marching to meetings in Faro, for example, the one of boxes being collected from the offices of Metodo 3
How did a photographer happen to be there to capture that photo? [I was going to post it but can't fathom how to do it on here]
Finally, to those who think I am breaking a Court injunction or order by posting details of my petition about Operation Grange and answering questions about it, could you please give chapter and verse on any one of them you think I might be in beach of?
NUMBER OF PETITION SGNERS: >>> 1,552 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Please stay On Topic. Or else.
Sorry to disagree, but I am almost certain Madeleine is alive.
The last post was on topic.
Don't bandy words with me, Stephen. You know very well which I mean.
I go with davel on this one, nobody knows one way or another except those who might have played a part.
You again are singling me out out Eleanor.
Why is that. ?
Despite the fact there has been no trace of her.
Hint: Don't mention the Morocco word. 8(0(*
@Blonk
I apologise for forcing you to confirm who you were purporting to be.
REPLY: No need to apologise, but I was never purporting to be anybody else
For those of us who support justice,
REPLY: Like me
what exactly are you doing with your petition which assists those working towards finding Madeleine & a resolution of the case?
REPLY: In a very modest way, it redirects focus onto whether or not Operation Grange ever was a genuine search for the truth. It most certainly doesn't do anyone any harm at all
I do agree with some of your points but I don't understand why you don't understand the reasons behind the Crimewatch broadcasts.
REPLY: What were these various reasons? I would be grateful if you could please tell me what you think they were
You are viewing any corruption from the wrong angle imo.
REPLY: What is the right angle from which to view any corruption please?
I do agree with many points on that summary.
My reservations as to whether it would succeed revolve around Cameron, as the secondary instigator of the 'investigation'.
He would block or divert it, resulting in a waste of money, and in his case would a turkey vote for Christmas ?
perhaps Blonk could answer a simple question...if grange is a sham...what is it's purpose...to influence public perception...public perception of what....what was the purpose of spending 12 miillion pounds...there would have to be a reason...that is the massive black hole in your theory...you cannot give a reason...and that's why I think you are totally wrong
If you look at it as a process it's clearer. Cameron was 'persuaded' by the parents and Brooks. He persuaded May. May persuaded the Met. The Met decided to take it on but the remit was to investigate the 'abduction'.
Why did they restrict it? Perhaps that's what they were asked to do, no more, no less. Perhaps the high ups in the Met decided to restrict it After all, neither Cameron, Brooks or May would have been pleased if SY had headed straight for the parents and their friends, would they? That would have been carrying on where the PJ left off and no-one thought that would go down well.
I expect the Met thought they could find evidence of an abduction where the PJ had failed. They used the press to show how busy they were and what they were achieving. Slowly but surely the their leads led nowhere. Now we have silence.
The McCann's and their backers have only one recourse, ABDUCTION.
Without that, where are they ?
First you haven't answered the question...bennett has said grange is a sham .....if it's a sham...what is it's real purpose...
second...do you know for a fact the grange has not considered and ruled out the parents... I would think they have....that leaves abduction as the most likely cause of the disappearance....which is the conclusion I have reached
Even if it all happened as I said, the remit makes it a sham. They didn't begin by proving an abduction happened, they began with a disappearance which they decided, on no evidence, to investigate as an abduction.
The purpose was to find an abductor. The mistake imo was to assume there was an abduction.
Why would Grange consider and rule out the parents? They are unlikely to have abducted their own child, which is why Redwood said they were not suspects or persons of interest.
you are again assuming that they did not look at the parents...that is an assumption ...a mistake by you...if the parents are ruled out then everything points to an abduction
I have given a reason why they didn't need to look at the parents; because they were looking at abduction only if we believe their remit.
Please give your reason why they would look at them.
because it is standard police practice......you are assuming they didn't...I am assuming they did...when was the remit drawn up....do we have a date....
It would be if parents reported a child missing in the UK. They would look at family and friends just to make sure it was an abduction. This investigation didn't begin at disappearance it began at abduction.
Why would the remit be drawn up after they started? That would be like starting to build a house then drawing up plans later.
Blonk, you can waffle as much as you like, but it is the FIRST item on your list that you are enraged about. SY are investigating an ABDUCTION, the McCann's and their friends are not suspects.
They didn't follow the route you would have liked them to have did they?
So you have wracked your brains to find a nice little list of why OG is a sham.
The Portuguese are working along side OG are they are a sham too?
Blonk, you can waffle as much as you like, but it is the FIRST item on your list that you are enraged about. SY are investigating an ABDUCTION, the McCann's and their friends are not suspects.
They didn't follow the route you would have liked them to have did they?
So you have wracked your brains to find a nice little list of why OG is a sham.
The Portuguese are working along side OG are they are a sham too?
I'm sorry I don't know why I'm even taking part in this debate with this man.
I know you see what he believes, that Madeleine died before the 3rd of May that everyone who saw Madeleine after Sunday are all lying or making a mistake. That the Smith's are lying too.
How can anyone take this man seriously?
I'm not going to say anything else on this thread Blonk is a sham.
If we don't know when the remit was drawn up then we don't know if the had already examined evidence....looked at the parents and then decided abduction. As I have already said if the parents are ruled out then abduction is odds on.
We have had criticism of the cost of grange from within the police...but not one word saying the parents had not been investigated... I think there would have been a leak if this was the case...
So it is all assumption...we do know Redwood ruled out the parents...you want to believe he did this without looking at them....the fact he ruled them out tells me they had looked at the evidence and spoken to them
It depends what you mean by ruled out. He said they were not suspects or persons of interest. He could happily say that if they never were suspects or persons of interest. He never said he'd ruled them out, did he? Those are your words. To rule someone out they first have to be ruled in.
It depends what you mean by ruled out. He said they were not suspects or persons of interest. He could happily say that if they never were suspects or persons of interest. He never said he'd ruled them out, did he? Those are your words. To rule someone out they first have to be ruled in.
The shelved enquiry ruled them in (made them arguidos), then ruled them out (the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).
I think you are splitting hairs this time.....parents are automatically suspects in these cases. I don't think SY would spend 12 million on an investigation without ruling the parents out...that would be a disgrace....we don't seem to know when the remit was drawn up ...that might help
The shelved enquiry ruled them in (made them arguidos), then ruled them out (the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).
If you look at it as a process it's clearer. Cameron was 'persuaded' by the parents and Brooks. He persuaded May. May persuaded the Met. The Met decided to take it on but the remit was to investigate the 'abduction'.
Why did they restrict it? Perhaps that's what they were asked to do, no more, no less. Perhaps the high ups in the Met decided to restrict it After all, neither Cameron, Brooks or May would have been pleased if SY had headed straight for the parents and their friends, would they? That would have been carrying on where the PJ left off and no-one thought that would go down well.
I expect the Met thought they could find evidence of an abduction where the PJ had failed. They used the press to show how busy they were and what they were achieving. Slowly but surely the their leads led nowhere. Now we have silence.
I'm curious to know how you can 'restrict' an investigation of this nature. Regardless of whether the remit was to investigate the 'abduction' or the 'disappearance' of Madeleine - the fact is that all the available evidence, witness statements, witnesses themselves and all the other information which was going to be examined by SY remain exactly the same for BOTH remits. So how does this 'restriction' actually work in practice?
The only way I can see to achieve that - is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence - which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.
The idea that SY officers would even be asked to do - what IMO is tantamount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - in the first place is preposterous - and the idea that scores of police officers would agree to be part of that illegal act is even more preposterous.
The fact is that as a result of examining the evidence and witnesses - SY were able to rule the McCanns and their friends out of the investigation.
If we don't know when the remit was drawn up then we don't know if the[y] had already examined evidence...looked at the parents and then decided abduction...
Intersecting terns you use ferryman but inappropriate. The investigation determined that they and Murat were suspects designating them arguidos. Due to a lack of evidence the arguido status was lifted on archiving the enquiry. Nobody has been ruled out as you put it.
Once accused, always accused until someone else is convicted isn't how due process works.
Otherwise, Kerry Needham would still be accused (for example).
I asked about Operation Grange's remit (together with several other questions about Grange) on 12 August 2011, by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. The Metropolitan Police refused the request on various grounds. My application and their response can be seen here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html
It was on 4 January 2012 that they first published details of their remit, and all of that is detailed on pamalam's site, here:
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/Metropolitan_04_01_2012.htm
That tells us that the remit was decided before 4 January 2012, but not exactly when. I do recall another Yard statement saying that the remit had been decided 'soon after Operation Grange was set up' and there was a reference elsewhere to a meeting of all the Yard's top officers to discuss this and other matters regarding Grange on a date in June 2011. I can't lay my hands on those references at the minute.
I hope that helps.
ETA - P.S. With reference to my earlier comments that Operation Grange is essentially a political, not a police, operation, I would argue that the Prime Minister of the U.K. had already told Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Head of the Met Police, exactly what the remit of Operation Grange was to be. His spokesman was directly quoted on 12 May 2011 as saying that the purpose of establishing this review was to:
"HELP THE FAMILY"
It follows from that that all the Senior Investigation Officer - DCS Hamish Campbell, the bungler of the Jill Dando murder investigation - had to do was to sit down and write out the Prime Minister's order into a form of words.
Which he did
It certainly would. I do hope your faith in the Metropolitan Police isn't misplaced. Given their track record I'm afraid I don't share it. They may have done everything you think they have, they may not.
Intersecting terns you use ferryman but inappropriate. The investigation determined that they and Murat were suspects designating them arguidos. Due to a lack of evidence the arguido status was lifted on archiving the enquiry. Nobody has been ruled out as you put it.
I'm curious to know how you can 'restrict' an investigation of this nature. Regardless of whether the remit was to investigate the 'abduction' or the 'disappearance' of Madeleine - the fact is that all the available evidence, witness statements, witnesses themselves and all the other information which was going to be examined by SY remain exactly the same for BOTH remits. So how does this 'restriction' actually work in practice?
I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.
The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.
Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.
Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.
Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.
We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.
Some people need reminding that the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown, regardless of the 'abduction bluster'.
I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.
The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.
Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.
Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.
Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.
We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.
could you provide a cite on why you question the track record of SY...quoting individual cases is not enough...you would need to compare their record to other similar police forces
This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based) - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html
This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based) - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html
I'm curious to know how you can 'restrict' an investigation of this nature. Regardless of whether the remit was to investigate the 'abduction' or the 'disappearance' of Madeleine - the fact is that all the available evidence, witness statements, witnesses themselves and all the other information which was going to be examined by SY remain exactly the same for BOTH remits. So how does this 'restriction' actually work in practice?
The only way I can see to achieve that - is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence - which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.
The idea that SY officers would even be asked to do - what IMO is tantamount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - in the first place is preposterous - and the idea that scores of police officers would agree to be part of that illegal act is even more preposterous.
The fact is that as a result of examining the evidence and witnesses - SY were able to rule the McCanns and their friends out of the investigation.
no it isn't a good starting point.......in order to assess SY as police force you would need to compare them to other police forces in other countries...we know the PJ were regularly featured on Amnesty Int website relating to torture..SY were not...
Evewryday patients die within the NHS ...sometimes due to doctor error...that does not amke the whole NHS substandard
... and there is no evidence to support whether she was or was not abducted.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/07/madeleine-mccann-is-missing-person.html
Once accused, always accused until someone else is convicted isn't how due process works.
Otherwise, Kerry Needham would still be accused (for example).
That is dated 14 Dec 2009. The scoping exercise wasn't concluded until sometime in March 2010.
Redwood has said the parents are not suspects...in plain english that means they are ruled out
Blonk, you can waffle as much as you like, but it is the FIRST item on your list that you are enraged about. SY are investigating an ABDUCTION, the McCann's and their friends are not suspects.
They didn't follow the route you would have liked them to have did they?
So you have wracked your brains to find a nice little list of why OG is a sham.
The Portuguese are working along side OG are they are a sham too?
I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.
The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.
Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.
Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.
Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.
We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.
If SY are investigating an abduction then that's why the McCanns and friends are not suspects. We haven't seen the remit (if any) of the PJ. There are two groups in Portugal. One is investigating, the other is dealing with Operation Grange's requests for information, interviews and suchlike.
That has nothing to do with the McCann case. All cases are different. SY were investigating ALL of the info in their possession re the McCann case - not just some of it.
Do you agree with the part of my previous post quoted below: If not can you explain by what other method (apart from being instructed to ignore certain evidence) the investigation could be restricted in practical workable terms to only considering 'abduction'.
Quote
The only way I can see to achieve that - is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence - which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.
unquote
For the above to happen - would require every one of the scores of police officers working on the case to be corrupt IMO. Not to mention the creation of scores of potential 'whistle-blowers'.
Too daft for words IMO.
That has nothing to do with the McCann case. All cases are different. SY were investigating ALL of the info in their possession re the McCann case - not just some of it.
Do you agree with the part of my previous post quoted below: If not can you explain by what other method (apart from being instructed to ignore certain evidence) the investigation could be restricted in practical workable terms to only considering 'abduction'.
Quote
The only way I can see to achieve that - is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence - which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.
unquote
For the above to happen - would require every one of the scores of police officers working on the case to be corrupt IMO. Not to mention the creation of scores of potential 'whistle-blowers'.
Too daft for words IMO.
I would imagine a police team works much like an accounts team. In a large company the accounts team input information into an accounting system; reciepts, payments, bank balances, assets. None of them can see the big picture. None of them can calculate the net worth of the company from the information they can access. None of them can decide which direction the company needs to take in the future.
Now imagine a team of policemen inputting into HOLMES. They are in the same position as an accounts assistant. They don't have the overall picture.
In both cases a very small amount of people can see the whole picture and decide which direction they wish to move in next, or how to interpret the information they have.
We have been told that the team was investigating an abduction, so that would be the direction they were taking.
To 'forensically examine' the timeline they had to take the group's statements at face value because there were no independent witnesses. They appear to have done that.
No-one has ever declared that they had 'ruled out' anyone. They declared certain people were not suspects or persons of interest, that's all. They didn't say why, but they could have done.
Gerry Mccann lets slip, 'the dogs are evidence'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz7hQetKpZk
That has nothing to do with the McCann case. All cases are different. SY were investigating ALL of the info in their possession re the McCann case - not just some of it.
Do you agree with the part of my previous post quoted below: If not can you explain by what other method (apart from being instructed to ignore certain evidence) the investigation could be restricted in practical workable terms to only considering 'abduction'.
Quote
The only way I can see to achieve that - is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence - which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.
unquote
For the above to happen - would require every one of the scores of police officers working on the case to be corrupt IMO. Not to mention the creation of scores of potential 'whistle-blowers'.
Too daft for words IMO.
No....SY are investigating an abduction BECAUSE the parents have been ruled out
You're entitled to believe what you like, but you can't demonstrate the truth of it.
You're entitled to believe what you like, but you can't demonstrate the truth of it.
You're entitled to believe what you like, but you can't demonstrate the truth of it.
The mccann supporters as do the mccanns, make a lot of claims.
It does not make them true, as with 'abduction'.
Blonk:
Quote:
"2. The clearly political nature of the decision to set up Operation Grange. I know of no other case where a Prime Minister has had to personally order an investigation, whether on our soil or foreign soil. Sometimes a British police force will, with the active co-operation of a foreign government, allow British officers to conduct enquiries in their country. But in this case, the Home Secretary had already and over a substantial period of time (a year) refused the McCanns’ request for a ‘review’. It was clear that David Cameron had to force Theresa May’s hand.
End quote
I don't see how Cameron could have "ordered" it. Ultimately, it was up to the Met Commissioner to consider it, but Stephenson could have refused if he'd been satisfied that the scoping exercise revealed no major deficiencies, which was clearly not the case.
There does indeed appear to have been Home Office inertia for a while, but UK law enforcement had been sending anything of potential interest over to PT, and that was probably considered sufficient.
They may not have fully realised that there were question marks over how seriously any incoming information to PT was being checked out...
Not only was this a young missing British subject, but there were also sexual assaults on British girls in the same area and they deserve some form of closure as well.
G do you really believe that if any evidence emerged from the files during the investigation which cast serious doubt on an 'abuction' - then that information/evidence would be ignored because it didn't fit in with SY's remit?
What do you think SY would have done with such evidence if it existed?
Gerry Mccann lets slip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz7hQetKpZk
How do you think they confirmed there was an abduction then? There's nothing in the files showing that an abduction took place. The Met speculated about burglars and smelly man but there was nothing in the files to suggest any of those people were in PdL on 3rd.
How do you think they confirmed there was an abduction then? There's nothing in the files showing that an abduction took place. The Met speculated about burglars and smelly man but there was nothing in the files to suggest any of those people were in PdL on 3rd.
I asked about Operation Grange's remit (together with several other questions about Grange) on 12 August 2011, by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. The Metropolitan Police refused the request on various grounds. My application and their response can be seen here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html
It was on 4 January 2012 that they first published details of their remit, and all of that is detailed on pamalam's site, here:
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/Metropolitan_04_01_2012.htm
That tells us that the remit was decided before 4 January 2012, but not exactly when. I do recall another Yard statement saying that the remit had been decided 'soon after Operation Grange was set up' and there was a reference elsewhere to a meeting of all the Yard's top officers to discuss this and other matters regarding Grange on a date in June 2011. I can't lay my hands on those references at the minute.
I hope that helps.
ETA - P.S. With reference to my earlier comments that Operation Grange is essentially a political, not a police, operation, I would argue that the Prime Minister of the U.K. had already told Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Head of the Met Police, exactly what the remit of Operation Grange was to be. His spokesman was directly quoted on 12 May 2011 as saying that the purpose of establishing this review was to:
"HELP THE FAMILY"
It follows from that that all the Senior Investigation Officer - DCS Hamish Campbell, the bungler of the Jill Dando murder investigation - had to do was to sit down and write out the Prime Minister's order into a form of words.
Which he did
How do you think they confirmed there was an abduction then? There's nothing in the files showing that an abduction took place. The Met speculated about burglars and smelly man but there was nothing in the files to suggest any of those people were in PdL on 3rd.
You didn't answer my question i.e. - If SY had been instructed to ignore any evidence which pointed away from an abduction - then what did they do with such evidence if it came to light?
You seem to be forgetting that we only have some of information from the files re this case. SY have ALL the info and also the ability to interview anyone they wish to and to make extensive background checks if necessary etc etc. in order to establish a person's credibility or otherwise as a witness.
They also have the professional expertise and the technology necessary to investigate the case. Anone who can't see how that puts them in a far superior position to make correct judgements than armchair detectives like us - needs a reality check IMO.
Blonk:
Quote:
"2. The clearly political nature of the decision to set up Operation Grange. I know of no other case where a Prime Minister has had to personally order an investigation, whether on our soil or foreign soil. Sometimes a British police force will, with the active co-operation of a foreign government, allow British officers to conduct enquiries in their country. But in this case, the Home Secretary had already and over a substantial period of time (a year) refused the McCanns’ request for a ‘review’. It was clear that David Cameron had to force Theresa May’s hand.
End quote
I don't see how Cameron could have "ordered" it. Ultimately, it was up to the Met Commissioner to consider it, but Stephenson could have refused if he'd been satisfied that the scoping exercise revealed no major deficiencies, which was clearly not the case.
There does indeed appear to have been Home Office inertia for a while, but UK law enforcement had been sending anything of potential interest over to PT, and that was probably considered sufficient.
They may not have fully realised that there were question marks over how seriously any incoming information to PT was being checked out...
Not only was this a young missing British subject, but there were also sexual assaults on British girls in the same area and they deserve some form of closure as well.
11. The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 4 I did not accept the likelihood that a man would take six years to come forward and say: “I am the man that Jane Tanner saw at 9.15pm on 3rd May and whom you have been looking for, for the past six years. The further claim that he was wearing almost identical clothes and his daughter almost identical pyjamas to those worn by the man and child seen by Jane Tanner seemed to add a further layer of improbability to this alleged account.
He may well have come forward before and it got lost in the mass of info. Cross-checking the evening crèche records and finding that someone of the same name had already submitted information is hopefully one of the advantages of having a comprehensive database.
"13. Constant leaks and unlikely stories I lost count of the procession of unlikely leads, suspects and stories, placed or leaked by Scotland Yard, which again was totally unlike any police investigation I have ever seen. Just from memory during 2012, 2013 and the early part of 2014 I can recall: (a) the dead, black tractor-driver from the Caper Verde Islands (b)M tales of burglars (c) six British men in a white van (d) an Ocean Club worker who might have had a second set of keys (e) a smelly bin man who had been approaching children in the early hours of the morning (f) more burglars (g) paedophiles who might have been in Praia da Luz I n2007, and so on. Once again, this appeared to me to be much more to do with influencing public perception and not with advancing a genuine investigation "
It's not known who leaked to the media. Many may have fluttered out of Faro PJ station again.
The Met have a media strategy. They did make a statement on the smelly intruder - that's understandable if they are trying to identify him and / or to encourage any other victims to come forward.
G do you really believe that if any evidence emerged from the files during the investigation which cast serious doubt on an 'abuction' - then that information/evidence would be ignored because it didn't fit in with SY's remit?Just for the record, I agree with G-Unit's description of how a large team works. From what I can see it applies to large police teams as well.
What do you think SY would have done with such evidence if it existed?
From what I have seen and read since OG was commissioned, SY's prime objective is to collar somebody so that they can justify the extortionate sums spent on this case. Even the reward, which is hidden away on the Met website, refers to a prosecution. The reward is not for the recovery of Madeleine. Madeleine would appear to be the least of SY's worries.
Just for the record, I agree with G-Unit's description of how a large team works. From what I can see it applies to large police teams as well.
A few at the top can see the whole of the puzzle. Those further down get to see fragments, or the picture as portrayed by those at the top.
As to the emergence of a 'smoking gun', it is simply not going to happen, as 4 police teams and several PIs have tried and failed to find one. If the case is solved by investigation, it is hardly likely to be finding a smoking gun. Without that, there is no need to bring in corruption or whistleblowers. 'Such evidence' would simply go into the system and be evaluated as non-significant, not a priority.
SY have been involved in this case from the beginning.
“The McCanns have completely changed the way we now look for missing children—it used to be you go to the police; now it means you go to the media, to celebrities,” says a disapproving Scotland Yard specialist in abused children.
Analyses of the residues collected following the visit by the dogs is entrusted to the English Forensic Science Service laboratory. To avoid any leaks of information, Stuart Prior, a senior officer with Leicestershire police, is responsible for liaison between the laboratory and José Freitas of Scotland Yard. The latter, who is with us, in Portimão, is passing on any relevant reports.
Inspector Ferreira,
DNA profile of Madeleine McCann that was collected in her parents house in England.
Regards
Jose de Freitas
New Scotland Yard
The latter, aged 46, is descended from Portuguese people who settled in Madeira and emigrated to the United Kingdom to find work and a better standard of living. Violent crime, abduction and illegal confinement are the speciality of this high-ranking Scotland Yard officer, who joined us eighteen days into the investigation - the English authorities consider that the presence of a man who knows Portugal and its culture could facilitate the investigation. He speaks our language with a British accent"
Mr. Freitas was not permitted by Scotland Yard to testify on Mr. Amaral's behalf in his fight to keep his book from being banned.
What was the official statement regarding Freitas, if there was one?
Even if the active current investigations come to an end, a "smoking gun" could always emerge at some point, as occasionally happens when investigating a different case and having a database to cross-check.Since we are now entering the realms of fresh evidence, it is hardly likely to of the type that implicates the McCanns. Hence there is no need to drag in corruption or whistleblowers.
For instance, although it is currently not known if there is any connection between smelly-man and Madeleine's disappearance, if there is another victim of the smelly-man type, wherever it occurs, then there would at least be some information in the database to either eliminate him as being the same person or not.
It's common sense that a SY officer would not to be allowed to reveal anything that could compromise a case they have now taken on.
'High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.'
Since we are now entering the realms of fresh evidence, it is hardly likely to of the type that implicates the McCanns. Hence there is no need to drag in corruption or whistleblowers.
If someone makes a death bed confession that clearly links to the McCanns and appears to be sound, I can see no reason why this would not be investigated, remit or not. The remit does prevent OG from investigating the McCanns in routine manner, consequently any information to get this changed would need to be substantial. Fair enough. There is still no need for corruption or whistleblowers.
Since we are now entering the realms of fresh evidence, it is hardly likely to of the type that implicates the McCanns. Hence there is no need to drag in corruption or whistleblowers.
If someone makes a death bed confession that clearly links to the McCanns and appears to be sound, I can see no reason why this would not be investigated, remit or not. The remit does prevent OG from investigating the McCanns in routine manner, consequently any information to get this changed would need to be substantial. Fair enough. There is still no need for corruption or whistleblowers.
This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based) - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html
Thought this article raised by bennett was worth a read.....it confirms that 99% of SY officers are not corrupt...what a great force they are...thank you for highlighting this article...
just read the article again and its been corrected...the figure is now 99.5%...well done SY and well done bennett for bringing this to our attention
So about 150 or so officers are bent assuming the 99.5% figure is correct.
0.13% of the UK population are inside.
So is the MPS record good bad or indifferent?
Scores on scores on scores of MPs have signed this petition....I doubt they were "confused" Or saw it as "questionable"..
Scores on scores on scores of MPs have signed this petition....I doubt they were "confused" Or saw it as "questionable"..
Scores on scores on scores of MPs have signed this petition....I doubt they were "confused" Or saw it as "questionable"..
If you're looking at the data, it seems to be people who've signed within an MPs constituency... unless some MPs have signed 3-4 times.
If you're looking at the data, it seems to be people who've signed within an MPs constituency... unless some MPs have signed 3-4 times.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Look forward to your reply when you have a minute carana night night now
The signatories don't appear under the petition itself, so I presume you were looking at either "Show on a map" or "Get petition data (json format)".
Look at "Get Petition". In the first batch under the text of the petition is a category of "signatures_by_country"
The next batch refers to UK votes "signatures_by_constituency" followed - examples at random:
{"name":"Edinburgh South West","ons_code":"S14000025","mp":"Joanna Cherry QC MP","signature_count":4}
{"name":"Falkirk","ons_code":"S14000028","mp":"John Mc Nally MP","signature_count":3
{"name":"Paisley and Renfrewshire South","ons_code":"S14000053","mp":"Mhairi Black MP","signature_count":7
{"name":"Witney","ons_code":"E14001046","mp":"Rt Hon David Cameron MP","signature_count":4}
The signatories don't appear under the petition itself, so I presume you were looking at either "Show on a map" or "Get petition data (json format)".
Look at "Get Petition". In the first batch under the text of the petition is a category of "signatures_by_country"
The next batch refers to UK votes "signatures_by_constituency" followed - examples at random:
{"name":"Edinburgh South West","ons_code":"S14000025","mp":"Joanna Cherry QC MP","signature_count":4}
{"name":"Falkirk","ons_code":"S14000028","mp":"John Mc Nally MP","signature_count":3
{"name":"Paisley and Renfrewshire South","ons_code":"S14000053","mp":"Mhairi Black MP","signature_count":7
{"name":"Witney","ons_code":"E14001046","mp":"Rt Hon David Cameron MP","signature_count":4}
Whats the problem?
Signatories are listed in totals by constituency
??
Whats the problem?
Signatories are listed in totals by constituency
??
Mercury, this was your original post:Yes, that was my mistake
Scores on scores on scores of MPs have signed this petition....I doubt they were "confused" Or saw it as "questionable".
Yes, that was my mistake
We dont know how many MPs may have signed. Do you have any evidence to show the "real" number of signatories being a "third"? Yes, no?
I wonder how many people are aware that this petition even exists.
I doubt it has been mentioned in the mainstream media.
One or two might if the petition is the only "news".
No idea.
Have you found any evidence as to how many civil servants sit down to wade through potential duplicates / socks signing up to any particular petition?
"No idea" / "potential" quantified by a "third"
As I thought - utter speculation
8((()*/
"No idea" / "potential" quantified by a "third"
As I thought - utter speculation
8((()*/
"No idea" / "potential" quantified by a "third"
As I thought - utter speculation
8((()*/
Back to topic...Has he whose identity is known to all, but whose ID must never be mentioned by any other member apart from himself explained yet why the government has shelled out £12m to protect a couple of doctors from Rothley? Is it to do with nuclear energy, or the Jews?
I've been through Blonk's "concerns" and I still don't understand what he finds suspicious.
ETA: Let alone qualifying Op Grange as a sham / charade / farce.
Has he whose identity is known to all, but whose ID must never be mentioned by any other member apart from himself explained yet why the government has shelled out £12m to protect a couple of doctors from Rothley? Is it to do with nuclear energy, or the Jews?
More like just because they could. They threw £46MM at Kids Company. £3MM of that in the full knowledge it was going bust within a matter of days.I was rather hoping "Blonk" would respond with his rationale, I'm not overly interested in yours, no offence like.
I wouldn't look for a pattern of logic or business acumen.
Has he whose identity is known to all, but whose ID must never be mentioned by any other member apart from himself explained yet why the government has shelled out £12m to protect a couple of doctors from Rothley? Is it to do with nuclear energy, or the Jews?
I was rather hoping "Blonk" would respond with his rationale, I'm not overly interested in yours, no offence like.
I think you may have rather a wait for that, Alfred.I'm sure it will be worth the wait though - I will clear next Tuesday's diary in anticipation.
He is probably still composing answers to Carana's dissection of his rationale.
Has he whose identity is known to all, but whose ID must never be mentioned by any other member apart from himself explained yet why the government has shelled out £12m to protect a couple of doctors from Rothley? Is it to do with nuclear energy, or the Jews?
Of a more banal nature, one of Blonk's indicators as to his sham / charade theory concerned commissioning an age-progressed image of a missing child.
Other law enforcement agencies do so... does that mean that every case, wherever this is done, is a sham?
Is there any logical reason why one shouldn't be done in the absence of any evidence as to the fate of any particular missing child?
Could you please cite ONE specific example in world history of a case where an age-progressed photo has actually resulted in anyone being found?
That is really the kernel of that point - though of course it was the totality of the 14 points I gave that has led me to conclude that Operation Grange does not appear to be an honest search for the truth
PETITION SIGNERS >>> 1,567 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Are you questioning whether any age-progressed image ever produced by law enforcement anywhere is a sham, or just this one?
Could you please cite ONE specific example in world history of a case where an age-progressed photo has actually resulted in anyone being found?
That is really the kernel of that point - though of course it was the totality of the 14 points I gave that has led me to conclude that Operation Grange does not appear to be an honest search for the truth
PETITION SIGNERS >>> 1,567 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Could you please cite ONE specific example in world history of a case where an age-progressed photo has actually resulted in anyone being found?
That is really the kernel of that point - though of course it was the totality of the 14 points I gave that has led me to conclude that Operation Grange does not appear to be an honest search for the truth
PETITION SIGNERS >>> 1,567 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
It's not an abducted child case, but try this one.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/26/us/pennsylvania-missing-mystery/
Could you please cite ONE specific example in world history of a case where an age-progressed photo has actually resulted in anyone being found?
That is really the kernel of that point - though of course it was the totality of the 14 points I gave that has led me to conclude that Operation Grange does not appear to be an honest search for the truth
PETITION SIGNERS >>> 1,567 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
OK ... that's that one sorted for you. How else can we be of assistance to you?Good question 8((()*/
It is really easy to create multiple identities on the internet. Which of course no-one of integrity would use for nefarious purposes.
I would reclassify "speculation 8((()*/" as informed comment.
It would be interesting to find out what the 12m has been spent on. I suspect 5* accommodation for the police...
Yes, many expensive flights, hotels and four-course meals at the taxpayer's expense. And not only for police officers, the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and another top lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service also went out to Portugal in 2012. it's not at all clear what that was about.
Probably over £1 million was spent by the Met on elaborate preparations for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special transmitted on 14 October 2013; that's the amount the BBC spent on it, anyway. And basically, so far as the British public was concerned, the aim was to find out the identity of a man allegedly seen by the Smith family - using two e-fits which were...
* probably drawn up in the spring of 2008,
* which were handed to the McCanns,
* which the McCanns say were regarded as irrelevant by the PJ and Leicestershire Police,
* and which were handed by the McCanns to Operation Grange in the spring or summer of 2011 - over two years before the programme.
Then there was 'The Great Search' of Praia da Luz in the summer of 2013. Top-of-the-range Alouette Mark III Poruguese military helicopters used to fly over a patch of waste ground searched by the PJ six years earlier. All of that to be paid for by the British taxpayer. Pick-axes, augers, instruments, long-range cameras, rabbit bones, earth to be chemically analysed, TV cameras, media, GNR officers guarding the site etc. etc. - a great spectacle, but did it achieve anything?
It also must be a matter of debate as to whether Operation Grange seriously wanted to find out the identity of this alleged abductor given that they...
* showed us two quite different faces of the alleged man, and
* relied on claims that the efits were drawn up by people based on memories one year earlier of someone they had seen for at most a few seconds, face partially obscured, in the dark, with 'weak' street lighting, and who all claimed that they would never be able to recognise the man if they saw him again.
I think we should get a full explanation for all of this.
Meanwhile the petition stands today at 2,131 signatures, another 121 in 6 days...gradually the pace of people willing to sign it grows as more and more people hear about it:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Yes, many expensive flights, hotels and four-course meals at the taxpayer's expense. And not only for police officers, the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and another top lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service also went out to Portugal in 2012. it's not at all clear what that was about.
Probably over £1 million was spent by the Met on elaborate preparations for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special transmitted on 14 October 2013; that's the amount the BBC spent on it, anyway. And basically, so far as the British public was concerned, the aim was to find out the identity of a man allegedly seen by the Smith family - using two e-fits which were...
* probably drawn up in the spring of 2008,
* which were handed to the McCanns,
* which the McCanns say were regarded as irrelevant by the PJ and Leicestershire Police,
* and which were handed by the McCanns to Operation Grange in the spring or summer of 2011 - over two years before the programme.
Then there was 'The Great Search' of Praia da Luz in the summer of 2013. Top-of-the-range Alouette Mark III Poruguese military helicopters used to fly over a patch of waste ground searched by the PJ six years earlier. All of that to be paid for by the British taxpayer. Pick-axes, augers, instruments, long-range cameras, rabbit bones, earth to be chemically analysed, TV cameras, media, GNR officers guarding the site etc. etc. - a great spectacle, but did it achieve anything?
It also must be a matter of debate as to whether Operation Grange seriously wanted to find out the identity of this alleged abductor given that they...
* showed us two quite different faces of the alleged man, and
* relied on claims that the efits were drawn up by people based on memories one year earlier of someone they had seen for at most a few seconds, face partially obscured, in the dark, with 'weak' street lighting, and who all claimed that they would never be able to recognise the man if they saw him again.
I think we should get a full explanation for all of this.
Meanwhile the petition stands today at 2,131 signatures, another 121 in 6 days...gradually the pace of people willing to sign it grows as more and more people hear about it:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
I wouldn't hold your breath.
UK police forces are not in the habit of providing details of their investigations to the public unless they think it might advance those investigations.
From observation, it would seem that they consider the general public have little to offer in this case.
Some members of the "general public" perhaps less than others...
Yes, many expensive flights, hotels and four-course meals at the taxpayer's expense. And not only for police officers, the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and another top lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service also went out to Portugal in 2012. it's not at all clear what that was about.With the recent debate on here about how HOLMES 2 works, plus the stats released at the end of last year, it's actually possible to come up with a fairly well-informed view of how the money has been spent, should one wish to conduct such an exercise.
Probably over £1 million was spent by the Met on elaborate preparations for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special transmitted on 14 October 2013; that's the amount the BBC spent on it, anyway. And basically, so far as the British public was concerned, the aim was to find out the identity of a man allegedly seen by the Smith family - using two e-fits which were...
* probably drawn up in the spring of 2008,
* which were handed to the McCanns,
* which the McCanns say were regarded as irrelevant by the PJ and Leicestershire Police,
* and which were handed by the McCanns to Operation Grange in the spring or summer of 2011 - over two years before the programme.
Then there was 'The Great Search' of Praia da Luz in the summer of 2013. Top-of-the-range Alouette Mark III Poruguese military helicopters used to fly over a patch of waste ground searched by the PJ six years earlier. All of that to be paid for by the British taxpayer. Pick-axes, augers, instruments, long-range cameras, rabbit bones, earth to be chemically analysed, TV cameras, media, GNR officers guarding the site etc. etc. - a great spectacle, but did it achieve anything?
It also must be a matter of debate as to whether Operation Grange seriously wanted to find out the identity of this alleged abductor given that they...
* showed us two quite different faces of the alleged man, and
* relied on claims that the efits were drawn up by people based on memories one year earlier of someone they had seen for at most a few seconds, face partially obscured, in the dark, with 'weak' street lighting, and who all claimed that they would never be able to recognise the man if they saw him again.
I think we should get a full explanation for all of this.
Meanwhile the petition stands today at 2,131 signatures, another 121 in 6 days...gradually the pace of people willing to sign it grows as more and more people hear about it:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
With the recent debate on here about how HOLMES 2 works, plus the stats released at the end of last year, it's actually possible to come up with a fairly well-informed view of how the money has been spent, should one wish to conduct such an exercise.
Who paid for the helicopter? Dunno, and the petition wouldn't find out even if it got the required amount of signatures.
For every allegation of expense, it is possible to come up with another of money being looked after. In the June 2014 dig, the only place I know the OG team went for lunch was to the Brazilian buffet at Vale Verde, which is tasty and at €6.99 per person is far from extravagant.
Who paid for the helicopter?roughly how much of the hapless tax payer's money have you wasted on pointless FOI requests do you think?
ANSWER: There is an official statement, possibly in response to a Freedom of Information request, to the effect that the bill for all Portuguese assistance would be sent to the Metropolitan Police, who would pay it, i.e. the luckless British taxpayer. That is: top-grade military helicopters, GNR officers guarding search sites, and officers and translators to sit in on interminable rogatory interviews asking each luckless suspect/person of interest 254 pre-set questions, including this gem: "Did you kill Madeleine McCann?"
Dunno, and the petition wouldn't find out even if it got the required amount of signatures.
ANSWER: The petition isn't designed to find out about costs - those sorts of things can be dealt with via FoI Act requests - in fact I think I feel another FoI Act request coming on right now. Especially as the UK government has today announced it will jettison plans to introduce charges for asking them. The petition's purpose is essentially (a) to put the Met Police on notice that there are people out there who want a very good explanation for this 5-year-long, £12 million-plus investigation and (b) generally to raise awareness about Operation Grange.
In the June 2014 dig, the only place I know the OG team went for lunch was to the Brazilian buffet at Vale Verde, which is tasty and at €6.99 per person is far from extravagant.
ANSWER: How decent of them! Where did they all stay? - in a 1-star B & B in downtown Portimao?
A mere drop in the ocean of taxpayer expenditure, I expect.as is £12m on the Madeleine investigation.
as is £12m on the Madeleine investigation.
and completely wasted as predicted.not completely - it's given you something to moan about for the last few years.
not completely - it's given you something to moan about for the last few years.
not completely - it's given you something to moan about for the last few years.
Just pointing out that probably is a synonym of perhaps, therefore not evidence.
Er, forgive me, @ Erngath, but I think you mean that probably is an antonym of perhaps.
Agreed?
I think Erngath has got it right; I'm with him on the synonym; unless you can show us where we are going wrong.
Not that it really matters.
Synonyms and Antonyms of probably
by reasonable assumption <we would probably win that bet>
Synonyms assumably, doubtless, likely, presumably
Related Words maybe, mayhap, perchance, perhaps, possibly; conceivably, imaginably, plausibly, practically, reasonably; potentially; assuredly, certainly, clearly, conclusively, decisively, definitely, definitively, indisputably, indubitably, positively, really, surely, truly, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably; presumedly, supposably, supposedly
Phrases as like as not (or like as not)
Near Antonyms implausibly, inconceivably, incredibly, unbelievably, unthinkably
Antonyms improbably
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/probably
Thanks. The two words 'probable' and 'perhaps' have quite different meanings. They are most certainly NOT synonyms.
Erngath wrote: "Just pointing out that probably is a synonym of perhaps".
Look above.
'Probably' is in the above list as a SYNONYM (Same as or similar meaning) with: assumably, doubtless, likely, presumably. The meaning is that something is very likely, probable to happen.
'Perhaps' does NOT carry the same or similar meaning as 'probably'. It is therefore NOT a Synonym.
Compare:
"It's probable that the Conservatives will win the next General Election" with
"Perhaps UKIP or the Greens will win the next General Election".
Words like 'improbable' and 'implausible' are shown as ANTONYMS (i.e. opposites to 'probable'), meaning that something is unlikely to happen.
I thought Erngarth meant that the words 'probable' and 'perhaps' have similar meaning, which clearly they do not.
I will cheerfully concede, though, that the two words 'probably' and 'perhaps' are not strictly opposites, or antonyms, either.
All of the above words are about the likelihood, or chance, of something happening.
Strictly speaking, therefore, it is classed as a 'related' word, therefore neither synonym nor antonym of 'probably'.
I hope that clears it up
I wonder whether the site owner had envisaged the site morphing into a sort of U3A cum O.U with threads on photography, meteorology and grammar ?
What next The Great JF Cook Off ? (well that is what it sounded like).
Wasn't Antonym the bloke who built a wall from the Forth to the Clyde?
Thank you again to all who have signed the petition asking for the Home Office to report on Operation Grange and the role of other police forces, the government and the security services in the Madeleine McCann case.
We have 2,509 signatures so far - and there's still 16 days left to sign it before it closes: >>>
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
Not many at all. What is the target figure ?
Perhaps mods could have a flashing avatar for when they do a mod post 8)-)))
Not many at all. What is the target figure ?
Perhaps mods could have a flashing avatar for when they do a mod post 8)-)))
No chance, then. Probably a good thing as it would never do to have an open and transparent view of police activities.
And just how predisposed do you think that makes you?
No chance, then. Probably a good thing as it would never do to have an open and transparent view of police activities.
I'm a bit confused here.
There is an active investigation currently going on into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Was the purpose of this petition to assist possible miscreants or suspects by making police activities transparent in an active case?
I'm a bit confused here.
There is an active investigation currently going on into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Was the purpose of this petition to assist possible miscreants or suspects by making police activities transparent in an active case?
I'm sure British police will never willingly release all the information about a case, even after a conviction.Who, apart from a bunch of armchair detectives, do you think has benefited from the release of the Portuguese Files on this particular case?
It seems to me very progressive that the Portuguese system does allow this, in at least some cases.
It doesn't matter! It will not reach enough signatures for the "We acknowledge receipt of your submission of the mmth inst. We will consider your submission and revert if we deem appropriate" type response let alone enough for a debate. Anyway any decent project manager type could set it out in a way that simultaneously tells all but tells nothing, if push came to shove.
I'm sure British police will never willingly release all the information about a case, even after a conviction.
It seems to me very progressive that the Portuguese system does allow this, in at least some cases.
In my opinion what the current position has shown is that in population terms there is a voluble minority whose ubiquity on fora, twitter and media comment far outweighs the actual numbers.How many signatures has he got up to now?
It has been a revealing exercise but perhaps not in the way initially intended.
Thank you again to all who have signed the petition asking for the Home Office to report on Operation Grange and the role of other police forces, the government and the security services in the Madeleine McCann case.
We have 2,509 signatures so far - and there's still 16 days left to sign it before it closes: >>>
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
do you have any explanation for the pitiful amount of support you have attractedThere's always FOIs - for example it would be interesting to check that spokesperson's claim that phonecalls to a parent from the top people of Govt ceased completely on A day.
How many signatures has he got up to now?
No, but that wasn't the intent, was it? The data was put onto DVDs for interested parties. I don't suppose the Portuguese authorities envisaged what would happen.
I was under the impression you did not know that the release of the files was unprecedented, since you applauded the progressive situation in Portugal which allows it in some cases.
You said ...
I'm sure British police will never willingly release all the information about a case, even after a conviction.
It seems to me very progressive that the Portuguese system does allow this, in at least some cases.
I know I did. They are progressive, even if this is the first. No doubt they will release further files in the future. I don't believe this will be a one-off.
Files are released in Portugal, made available at the local cop shop. In this case they were released on a dvd due to the level of interest, and to avoid a real scrum.Presumably, given the ongoing level of interest, the release of any further files will be covered by the media, thus saving me a trip to my local cop shop.
What is interesting is the reason behind the release of police files - which is an understandable and laudable reaction to the antics of the secret police under the "ancient regime".
Presumably, given the ongoing level of interest, the release of any further files will be covered by the media, thus saving me a trip to my local cop shop.
Now, what would such files contain? OG ILORs to Portugal? The OG v the 4 arguidos? The OG v the 11 witnesses? The OG v the INLM? Anything on the Oporto leg?
Quite a lot of tasty fare in that lot.
I haven't heard anything about the PT investigation shutting up shop, so I don't see how any impending end to the current UK active phase would entitle PT to release information concerning the UK side.
AFAIK, the recent arguidos became so as a result of the UK investigation, quite possibly to comply with the UK notion of being interviewed under caution plus the right to a lawyer in an advisory capacity during the interviews if so desired.
On the PT side, the countdown to meet the strict deadlines is if there are either specific suspects or arguidos. (The two are not identical, although I can't find a clear definition of the difference - I presume it means that a "suspect" can be subject to covert surveillance prior to having arguido status.)