Maddie case funding. McCanns anxiously await news from Scotland Yard.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I am sorry ... I am afraid I do not have a clue what point you are making ... to be honest, I don't even know if it takes note of the important part of my post which was, semantics apart ...
"It would be appreciated if members post in accordance with the thread topics in all instances.  Thank you"

I thought  you being a mod an all,all of your words were very important, the bit about MBM's fate not that much so? OK.

Pages back you told us that two polices forces were looking for an 'abductor'- even though you have no clue what they are doing.

btw  the thread says the parents await news of funding, Faith pointed out they didn't thank the SY for gaining that funding. And what you and supporters forget, a little child was the reason for this global search, which is why the damn thing is costing so much- chasing boogy man after boogy man all over the world! The Anxious parents need other people to search for a child they lost,and the money they made from Maddies disappearance has been almost  dwindled away. This is why they wait anxiously. IMHO

[barrier]

The Home Office statement is below:
A Home Office spokesperson said:
The Government remains committed to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (Operation Grange). We have briefed the MPS that its application for Special Grant funding for Operation Grange will be granted.
   (already linked in one of barrier's posts).

From the horses mouth as it were; no speculation required:
The Home Office will only consider an application from the relevant PCC. The force is not able to make an application of its own volition.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-funding-special-grant-guidance/special-grant-guidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-funding-special-grant-applications

The PCC for the MET I believe is the Mayor Of London in this instance Sadiq Khan,aided by a deputy by the name of Sophie Linden.
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac/about-mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac-3

[barrier]

A little bit about how the formula for extra funding is worked out.

The Home Office will only consider an application from the relevant PCC. The force is not able to make an application of its own volition.
It is important to note that even if a special grant is provided, forces are expected to meet the additional costs of the event up to 1% of the force’s budget. For example, if 1% of the force’s budget is £2.4 million, and the PCC makes an application for £3.2 million to cover the additional costs incurred, generally, the force will be expected the pay the first, £2.4 million, with a special grant providing the balance (in this example a special grant of £800k would be provided).
The Home Office reserves the right to refuse a special grant application, and there should be no presumption that financial assistance will be available.
There are 2 fundamental questions that will be taken into consideration: do the additional costs equal or exceed 1% of the force’s budget?; would the refusal of financial assistance threaten the PCC’s financial stability and their capacity to deliver effective policing?
If the answer to at least one of these questions is yes then the relevant PCC may apply for a special grant.
The application for a special grant should only include additional costs. In general, these would include those necessary to pay staff overtime, mutual aid and rest day working costs, but may also include vehicle or equipment hire costs. Special grant funding does not cover opportunity costs, for example, the cost of an officer engaged in policing the event as part of their normal duty should not be included in the application because this is an opportunity cost.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-funding-special-grant-guidance/special-grant-guidance

[Brietta]

It is strange how other posters understand. Maybe that should tell you something?
Your posting opinion as fact with no caveat was the point. You demonstrate great alacrity in pointing out this deficiency in others.
If my post is off topic then so is yours so I suggest you delete both. The point I wished to convey has been, so with th'orse long since bolted feel free to shut the stable door.

Two 'hits' for you here.

• You have not clarified your post ... it is still as clear as mud as far as I am concerned.
• You certainly are ... in my opinion ... skilled in deflection from whatever topic takes your fancy.

Is it your contention that the Home Office have not approved the six monthly continuation of funding for Madeleine's case? or is your disapproval of the funding taking over your reasoning on the matter.

It would be good if you do respond if you used language less esoteric to your usual with the intention of ...

• Maintaining the topic of the thread
• While enabling the less erudite -such as myself - to have a reasonable clue as to your meaning.

[Brietta]

I thought  you being a mod an all,all of your words were very important, the bit about MBM's fate not that much so? OK.

Pages back you told us that two polices forces were looking for an 'abductor'- even though you have no clue what they are doing.

btw  the thread says the parents await news of funding, Faith pointed out they didn't thank the SY for gaining that funding. And what you and supporters forget, a little child was the reason for this global search, which is why the damn thing is costing so much- chasing boogy man after boogy man all over the world! The Anxious parents need other people to search for a child they lost,and the money they made from Maddies disappearance has been almost  dwindled away. This is why they wait anxiously. IMHO

Home Office in the media: 27 March 2018
Posted by: HO News Team, Posted on: 27 March 2018 - Categories: Fact sheet, Leading stories, Reactive statements

Special Grant funding for Operation Grange
The Express, Sun, Independent, Star, Mirror and Daily Mail all lead today on the Home Office announcement that the Government remains committed to the investigation, and that we have briefed the Metropolitan Police Service that its application for Special Grant funding will be granted to support the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Mail states that detectives applied for more funding last month, and that Government funding has been granted every six months, with £154,000 being granted from October last year.

The Express carries a statement by the McCann’s saying they are “incredibly grateful”

Sky News, ITV News and BBC all state that police have been given more cash in the search efforts of Madeleine McCann, and speculate that more than £11 million has already been spent on the investigation.

The Home Office statement is below:
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/03/27/home-office-in-the-media-27-march-2018/

[Miss Taken Identity]

Home Office in the media: 27 March 2018
Posted by: HO News Team, Posted on: 27 March 2018 - Categories: Fact sheet, Leading stories, Reactive statements

Special Grant funding for Operation Grange
The Express, Sun, Independent, Star, Mirror and Daily Mail all lead today on the Home Office announcement that the Government remains committed to the investigation, and that we have briefed the Metropolitan Police Service that its application for Special Grant funding will be granted to support the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Mail states that detectives applied for more funding last month, and that Government funding has been granted every six months, with £154,000 being granted from October last year.

The Express carries a statement by the McCann’s saying they are “incredibly grateful”

Sky News, ITV News and BBC all state that police have been given more cash in the search efforts of Madeleine McCann, and speculate that more than £11 million has already been spent on the investigation.

The Home Office statement is below:
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/03/27/home-office-in-the-media-27-march-2018/

 
Yeah, did you delete the bit where they were  using the funding looking for an abductor as was the PJ?  I can't see that very important bit.

Did the Parents  really phone the Daily mail to say they were   whatever grateful?. second ,third, forth hand?

[Brietta]

Yeah, did you delete the bit where they were  using the funding looking for an abductor as was the PJ?  I can't see that very important bit.

Did the Parents  really phone the Daily mail to say they were   whatever grateful?. second ,third, forth hand?

We amateur sleuths have no idea what the present justification is that the home office have accepted when considering and granting continued funding to the police investigation of Madeleine McCann's case.

I seem to remember a bit of a furore about the original wording of their remit, though ... did you miss out on that?  Or was the remit changed without me noticing?

[Miss Taken Identity]

We amateur sleuths have no idea what the present justification is that the home office have accepted when considering and granting continued funding to the police investigation of Madeleine McCann's case.

I seem to remember a bit of a furore about the original wording of their remit, though ... did you miss out on that?  Or was the remit changed without me noticing?

'We amateur sleuths have no idea what the present justification is that the home office have accepted when considering and granting continued funding to the police investigation of Madeleine McCann's case'.

Oh Good. cos you were selling the 'two police forces were looking for an abductor, on another thread. AND now here you are admitting you know nothing. Thank you for that.

'I seem to remember a bit of a furore about the original wording of their remit, though ... did you miss out on that?  Or was the remit changed without me noticing'?

Well yeah you did miss out  the DIRECT QUOTE where you cite- PJ admitting the McCanns were telling the truth and they found an abductor- albeit a dead one.  How could someone as articulate are your very good self be so remiss of that?

So you are not going to provide a direct quote regarding  this?

The home office blog doesn't say what the funding was being used for  or how much it was, it was just giving a running commentary.

[Alice Purjorick]

Two 'hits' for you here.

• You have not clarified your post ... it is still as clear as mud as far as I am concerned.
• You certainly are ... in my opinion ... skilled in deflection from whatever topic takes your fancy.

Is it your contention that the Home Office have not approved the six monthly continuation of funding for Madeleine's case? or is your disapproval of the funding taking over your reasoning on the matter.

It would be good if you do respond if you used language less esoteric to your usual with the intention of ...

• Maintaining the topic of the thread
• While enabling the less erudite -such as myself - to have a reasonable clue as to your meaning.

Show me where I said I disapprove of the funding.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So we know that at one point Mitchell was paid by the fund. Is there any reason to believe that is still not the case ?

Further what we do know for certain, a fact that you are studiously trying to avoid, is that the McCanns didn’t  deem raising awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance important enough to employ someone to send out travel packs etc when Kate was ‘too busy’.

I thought that would have been taking the thread even further off topic but if you want to discuss it by all means start a new thread about it and we can disuss it there to your heart's content.

[Robittybob1]

Show me where I said I disapprove of the funding.

Make your position absolutely clear then please?

[Alice Purjorick]

Make your position absolutely clear then please?

I have challenged Brietta to back up one of her statements by demonstrating where I have expressed disapproval of the funding either explicitly or implicitly. It is now her move.

My position is irrelevant as Brietta has asserted I disapprove without caveat so it's up to her to substantiate that assertion. If it's right then proving it from my posts will be simple; otherwise ......