Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[Angelo222]

This, second, enquiry is being conducted the way the first one should have been and (latterly, under Rebelo) broadly was.

What?  By downsizing and fading away!

[Brietta]

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.

That is interesting Erngath ... it is a study I never thought of because I know that Scots can be as misguided as anyone else, but it tends to reinforce my experience of life and attitudes and what I know of good people here.

[Carana]

We can agree occasionally Carana.

It's not against the law.

I think you even agreed with me over a detail at some point.

It can happen. :)

[Angelo222]

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?

If finding zilch is progress then I must have missed something.  Redwood was wheeled out to much fanfaring but then failed to make any progress and was quietly retired allowing the incumbent to wrap up the entire operation without having to account to anyone.  Nice trick!

[Angelo222]

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?

Forum Rules

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.

You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.

You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason.  We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.

After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.

Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.

Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg274841#msg274841

[Brietta]

Indeed, how would she know ?

"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 leads which 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.

[ferryman]

What?  By downsizing and fading away!

No, by keeping details (of the investigation) largely under tabs.

[G-Unit]

"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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

This appears to be the last comment of substance from O.G.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-on-the-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-135459.

[Mr Gray]

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?

they reside here...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.0

[stephen25000]

Do you mean who I think you mean, or do you mean someone else ? &%+((£

The 'expression' mentioned has been viewed.

[blonk]

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   

[Mr Gray]

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   

I would say you have no evidence and it's all in your mind

[Alfred R Jones]

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   

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.

[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   

"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?