Has the reward money for the safe return of Madeleine McCann been dropped?

[gilet]

I am sure that the McCanns and their advisers have discussed this subject at length. Since they were conned by Metodo, I am sure that their advisers have been better chosen.

Gilet isn't the only poster who uses the authoritarian "I am sure". How can one be sure about what other people have or not done, thought or not thought... ? Unless being very intimate, I don't see how.
Nobody is deluded but it hampers the debate, imo.

Are you seriously suggesting that the McCanns have not discussed this issue with advisers?

If you are then I suggest you look to yourself for the delusion rather than in my posts.

My use of the phrase "I am sure" in this instance has nothing to do with "being very intimate", but everything to do with intelligent consideration of the situation and coming to a logical conclusion about it.

I don't know, Gilet, and you don't as well. You're just speculating however brightly you pretend to do it...
Words have a weight that must be respected unless chaos is the purpose.

I remain absolutely sure that this has been discussed. That is my belief and I am sticking to it.

If you think otherwise you must consider both the McCanns and their advisers either so lacking in intelligence as to be unable to contemplate such obvious matters or to be so dismissive of such obvious matters that they simply don't care to discuss them. I don't consider them to be either of the above.  I have read their words on the case which suggest they have considered and discussed every possible option and I therefore base my belief on that.

And there is nothing in my statement that I am sure about this which would cause the casual reader to believe that I am "intimate" with the family. A predisposition to believe such nonsense would however lead to that conclusion. It is not the words but the predisposition of the person coming to those words which I think in this case has caused the confusion.

[Angelo222]

It is very obvious that the reward which was offered for the safe return of Madeleine McCann and which was publicised in a blaze of publicity no longer exists.  What incentive is there for anyone with crucial information as to her whereabouts to come forward any more?  Do members think this is a backward step after 6 years or is there more to this than meets the eye?   

As the 7th anniversary of Madeline's disappearance is not too far away I must revive this thread.   I find it almost beyond belief that they don't offer a reward for her safe return even now.

Please discuss.

[stephen25000]

As the 7th anniversary of Madeline's disappearance is not too far away I must revive this thread.   I find it almost beyond belief that they don't offer a reward for her safe return even now.

Please discuss.

I've already pointed this out a few times Angelo.

.....and as you know well, MONEY TALKS.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Does anyone know of a real reason why a reward would not be offered?

Other than the risk of generating false leads?

Given that so many false leads are going to be generated by publicity and 'sightings' campaigns, this would not appear to be a concern here.

[Estuarine]

The MPS are still offering 20 grand reward for information leading to.....

[Sherlock Holmes]

The MPS are still offering 20 grand reward for information leading to.....

Hm...

I do think that only a much larger reward would be relevant here.

Joe Bloggs watching Crimewatch and remembering something from their holiday in PdL in 2007 is not going to need the lure of a reward to call in with details. They are going to do so because that is the right thing.

A reward would be used to persuade someone concealing someone or something to come forward. But for that - given that loyalties, reputations, and possibly lives could be at risk in doing so - there would have to be on offer a substantial sum.

[Angelo222]

Hm...

I do think that only a much larger reward would be relevant here.

Joe Bloggs watching Crimewatch and remembering something from their holiday in PdL in 2007 is not going to need the lure of a reward to call in with details. They are going to do so because that is the right thing.

A reward would be used to persuade someone concealing someone or something to come forward. But for that - given that loyalties, reputations, and possibly lives could be at risk in doing so - there would have to be on offer a substantial sum.

Not if José Bloggs has a record or a history of some sort with the police he won't.  We know all too well from Jenny Murat's actions that the locals don't trust the Portuguese police.

The McCanns have a reasonable pot of caixa, its not unreasonable for them to offer a huge reward is it?  After all, is it the money or their daughter they cherish most these days?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not if José Bloggs has a record or a history of some sort with the police he won't.  We know all too well from Jenny Murat's actions that the locals don't trust the Portuguese police.

The McCanns have a reasonable pot of dough, its not unreasonable for them to offer a huge reward is it?  After all, is it the money r their daughter they want?

Yes, I see what you mean regarding what Jenny Murat was doing.

As to why the McCanns would not offer something, I cannot think of a reason. Surely there would be nothing to lose.

[Lyall]

Yes, I see what you mean regarding what Jenny Murat was doing.

As to why the McCanns would not offer something, I cannot think of a reason. Surely there would be nothing to lose.

I think the reaction to the Sunday Times article last October shows us questions like these are simply not asked because lawyers may consider answers libelous. Dodgy territory, SH.

[Estuarine]

Hm...

I do think that only a much larger reward would be relevant here.

Joe Bloggs watching Crimewatch and remembering something from their holiday in PdL in 2007 is not going to need the lure of a reward to call in with details. They are going to do so because that is the right thing.

A reward would be used to persuade someone concealing someone or something to come forward. But for that - given that loyalties, reputations, and possibly lives could be at risk in doing so - there would have to be on offer a substantial sum.

I believe that honest people may* come forward anyway. The lure of £1.5MM didn't produce much in the first instance why would it now?

* I say may based on my experience of being a witness to a R.T.A. My treatment by the police put me off doing it again.

[jassi]

I believe that honest people may* come forward anyway. The lure of £1.5MM didn't produce much in the first instance why would it now?

* I say may based on my experience of being a witness to a R.T.A. My treatment by the police put me off doing it again.

Probably because nobody knows anything about any abduction.

[AnneGuedes]

Probably because nobody knows anything about any abduction.

So simple and plausible !

[Silkywhiskers]

Yep.

That reward would've been claimed by one of the "burglars" who would have turned in his buddies in a heartbeat.

Assuming they existed in the first place,of course...

[Redblossom]

Probably because nobody knows anything about any abduction.

Now theres a thought....whch brings me back to the question, so many years an act?

[Silkywhiskers]

Now theres a thought....whch brings me back to the question, so many years an act?

Yes, of course!

If it walks like a snake and talks like a snake, guess what?

It's a bloody snake, not 3 burglars/apartment managers/gypsies/Euclides/Hewlett/Murat/Poshspice etc.