Maddie cops seek yet more cash

[Vertigo Swirl]

Once again let's be accurate. Feelings invented by you, not felt by me.

If you look at my post again you will see that the second part (my question) refers to rationality, not feelings.  Once again you’ve deflected.  I don’t need to invent anything.  “Sitting well” is about opinion, not feelings, and I don’t think it’s any invention at all to suggest that it doesn’t sit well with you that the parents are not being investigated.  It’s as clear as the nose on Goncalo Amaral’s face that you disapprove of the Met’s focus, and that of the Germans.  You can deny until you’re blue in the face, but your thousands of posts say otherwise.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I see the troll is goading the mods into giving me warning points.  What on earth for?  Speaking plainly?  Saying what is completely obvious?  Speaking truth to power (to use a popular phrase atm)?

[G-Unit]

If you look at my post again you will see that the second part (my question) refers to rationality, not feelings.  Once again you’ve deflected.  I don’t need to invent anything.  “Sitting well” is about opinion, not feelings, and I don’t think it’s any invention at all to suggest that it doesn’t sit well with you that the parents are not being investigated.  It’s as clear as the nose on Goncalo Amaral’s face that you disapprove of the Met’s focus, and that of the Germans.  You can deny until you’re blue in the face, but your thousands of posts say otherwise.

All about your opinions, not mine. Your opinions don't interest me and neither do your unrelenting attempts to discredit me. Stick to the facts and leave out your speculations please.

[Wonderfulspam]

I see the troll is goading the mods into giving me warning points.  What on earth for?  Speaking plainly?  Saying what is completely obvious?  Speaking truth to power (to use a popular phrase atm)?

For goading, VS. You are very clearly goading G-unit imo.
Of course the concept is entirely subjective, but that fact didn't save me from deletion & warning points, so I really don't see why it should spare you.

[G-Unit]

Anyway, back to verifiable facts. I think it's worth noting that when the Home Office pay Operation Grange from the Special Grants Fund they make no judgement about whether the request is justified or not;

"When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police."

Also, the requests are not necessarilly connected to future expenditure, they could be related to extra spending in the previous period;

"Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year."
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/

[jassi]

Anyway, back to verifiable facts. I think it's worth noting that when the Home Office pay Operation Grange from the Special Grants Fund they make no judgement about whether the request is justified or not;

"When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police."

Also, the requests are not necessarilly connected to future expenditure, they could be related to extra spending in the previous period;

"Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year."
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/

At what level in the Met is this operational decision made, I wonder

[Vertigo Swirl]

All about your opinions, not mine. Your opinions don't interest me and neither do your unrelenting attempts to discredit me. Stick to the facts and leave out your speculations please.

So sticking to the facts,  I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal.  I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all.  I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this.  I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Anyway, back to verifiable facts. I think it's worth noting that when the Home Office pay Operation Grange from the Special Grants Fund they make no judgement about whether the request is justified or not;

"When considering special grants applications, the Home Office does not take a view on whether an investigation should continue, which would be an operational matter for the police."

Also, the requests are not necessarilly connected to future expenditure, they could be related to extra spending in the previous period;

"Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year."
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/05/home-office-update-on-funding-for-operation-grange/

And that's exactly as it should be, unless you want the police to take their orders from government.

[G-Unit]

So sticking to the facts,  I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal.  I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all.  I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this.  I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.

Speculations, not facts;

That 'sceptics' have beliefs.
That 'sceptics' need all the facts.
That 'sceptics' think they know better than the experts.

[Wonderfulspam]

So sticking to the facts,  I'm interested in how sceptics rationalise their beliefs in the face of the FACT that 1) the police in at least two countries are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger (even if they differ on who committed the crime) and 2) Sceptics come at the case from a position of ignorance by dint of the FACT that they do not have all the FACTS of the case at their disposal.  I'm interested in why they think they know better than the professional experts who have spent years investigating the FACTS of the case, that is all.  I don't think any sceptic is prepared or even able to explain this.  I certainly don't expect you to be able to rationalise it, it's obviously a FACT better ignored.

OK

1) Any investigation of the McCanns by the MET would be illegal, so they have no choice but to pursue stranger abduction in any event.

2) I didn't need to see the 'evidence' against Christian Brueckner, to very easily predict that he'd never be charged with anything relating to Maddie. Unlike others here, who are still deluded enough to believe the Germans really are onto something.

[Wonderfulspam]

Speculations, not facts;

That 'sceptics' have beliefs.
That 'sceptics' need all the facts.
That 'sceptics' think they know better than the experts.

The supporters have no choice now but to accept that Brueckner abducted & murdered Maddie really, because to doubt the German experts would be outright lunacy. They are in possession of all the FACTS, which needs to be written in capital letters for some unknown reason, & there's no good reason not to have 100% concrete faith in the word of the learned expert, Hans Wolters.

[barrier]

The supporters have no choice now but to accept that Brueckner abducted & murdered Maddie really, because to doubt the German experts would be outright lunacy. They are in possession of all the FACTS, which needs to be written in capital letters for some unknown reason, & there's no good reason not to have 100% concrete faith in the word of the learned expert, Hans Wolters.

There are facts the Germans have CB has prime suspect, these facts will not convict though, known unknowns are the problem along with what is unknown. But back to the funding what can OG do that has not already been done.

[Wonderfulspam]

There are facts the Germans have CB has prime suspect, these facts will not convict though, known unknowns are the problem along with what is unknown. But back to the funding what can OG do that has not already been done.

Get that DNA test done on Julia Wendell. She says she recognizes Brueckner, she also said she recognizes the McCanns voices. I see no good reason to doubt her really. So that's something Grange could be getting on with, whilst they continue stabbing in the dark.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Speculations, not facts;

That 'sceptics' have beliefs.
That 'sceptics' need all the facts.
That 'sceptics' think they know better than the experts.

So is it a fact then that

Sceptics DO have beliefs and many of them DO believe they know better than the Met and the BKA - that is a FACT, which can be borne out by reading the millions of views that they have been so very kind to share with us in the last 16 years, some of which are even posted on this forum.  To claim that sceptics have no beliefs is hogwash of the highest order.

[Wonderfulspam]

So is it a fact then that

Sceptics DO have beliefs and many of them DO believe they know better than the Met and the BKA - that is a FACT, which can be borne out by reading the millions of views that they have been so very kind to share with us in the last 16 years, some of which are even posted on this forum.  To claim that sceptics have no beliefs is hogwash of the highest order.

Well, I predicted 16 years ago that they'd never find Madeleine's abductor, & they're still proving me right to this very day. But maybe tomorrow aye. Let's check back in tomorrow & see if the three expert investigative forces, armed as they are with all the FACTS & abduction evidence, let's see if they manage to prove me wrong.