Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[Carana]

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     

Why makes you think it's a charade / sham?

[Carana]

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

[Carana]

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"       

According to whom?

[Carana]

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   

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

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

Something to do with Tony Blair according to Mr "Blonk".

[Angelo222]

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?

[Carana]

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.

[stephen25000]

it wasn't funded by the Met budget, but by a Home Office slush fund.

It is still tax payers money.

[Mr Gray]

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 could be all those things but what is the evidence for it being a sham

[Carana]

It is still tax payers money.

I agree. But that never stopped untold petitions (UK and PT) to (re)investigate the case when it had been assumed that the McCanns would automatically be in the firing line again.

What changed, do you think?

[Carana]

It could be all those things but what is the evidence for it being a sham

I do hope that Mr Blonk will return to substantiate this...

[Carana]

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...

[Alice Purjorick]

it wasn't funded by the Met budget, but by a Home Office slush fund.

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 

[Mr Gray]

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...

Are SY limited to what they can say due to the Portuguese

[Carana]

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 

I don't remember that. LOL

Does calling it a contingency fund sound better?