Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Why should the nature of the crime against the child be relevant wrt to the amount spent trying to solve the case?

The bigger the investigation the bigger the budget.

Simple really.
2
I donít agree that the McCanns received preferential treatment.   Operation Grange is not about them, itís about their daughter and about investigating her disappearance.  When the investigation was re-opened £14 m wasnít thrown at it all at once.  But once the investigation established that there were many leads to be followed up then more resources were needed.   Do you think having spent a million or two and establishing loads of new leads they should simply have left it at that because a million or two quid is enough per child?  How much is too much to spend on trying to solve a case in your view?  Should an investigation continue until all avenues have been exhausted or when a pre-determined amount per child has been exhausted?  Whatís the betting you donít answer these questions either?

Absolutely every child should be searched for until the last snippet of information is investigated and discarded but in the real world and with the budget constraints placed on law enforcement agencies this is not feasible and  hard decisions have to be made.

Where is the multi million pound budget set aside to look into the case of Sandy Davidson or Holly Bringan or indeed Daniel Entwistle who went missing only a few short years before Madeleine? Where is their cold case review to see if any new leads have surfaced? Are their parents pleas for some kind of justice for their child any less important than those of the McCanns and if not why have they no police force following leads that may have been missed?

When a child goes missing it is their parents who plead for help and in those pleadings the McCanns were listened to where others werenít. That is simply a fact. So yes, while  Madeleine was the object of the investigation, the preferential treatment of the parentís pleas in comparison to many other parents in a similar situation is undeniable.

3
More questions for you Faith:

do you think violent and or sexual crimes are investigated by the police soley for the benefit of the victims and their families?

And name one other case anywhere in the world at any time  where the perpetrators of a crime have also been singled out for preferential treatment by having their own crimes re-investigated at their own insistence?
4
NoÖmissing childÖsingular.

Besides HLG was a child abuse investigation not an investigation into missing children.
Why should the nature of the crime against the child be relevant wrt to the amount spent trying to solve the case?
5
Again I really donít mind if you donít wish to answer. Perhaps the fact that we both agree on the veracity of my claim is enough for the purposes of this particular discussion.
I donít agree that the McCanns received preferential treatment.   Operation Grange is not about them, itís about their daughter and about investigating her disappearance.  When the investigation was re-opened £14 m wasnít thrown at it all at once.  But once the investigation established that there were many leads to be followed up then more resources were needed.   Do you think having spent a million or two and establishing loads of new leads they should simply have left it at that because a million or two quid is enough per child?  How much is too much to spend on trying to solve a case in your view?  Should an investigation continue until all avenues have been exhausted or when a pre-determined amount per child has been exhausted?  Whatís the betting you donít answer these questions either?
6
Explain why not.  Your beef appears to be the disparity in the amount of money spent on criminal investigations involving children, no?

NoÖmissing childÖsingular.

Besides HLG was a child abuse investigation not an investigation into missing children.
7
Why do you think I should I do you the courtesy of answering your questions when you refuse to answer mine?  Answer my question and I will answer yours.

Again I really donít mind if you donít wish to answer. Perhaps the fact that we both agree on the veracity of my claim is enough for the purposes of this particular discussion.

8
Then why were the McCanns given more resources? Both children are still missing.
Thatís the question I keep asking you and which you refuse to answer.  What makes the McCannx so special?  You claim preferential treatment so there must be a reason. 
9
Perhaps because it isnít comparable?
Explain why not.  Your beef appears to be the disparity in the amount of money spent on criminal investigations involving children, no?
10
You agree that more money has been spent on this case than the case of any other missing child. Why do you think that was?
Why do you think I should I do you the courtesy of answering your questions when you refuse to answer mine?  Answer my question and I will answer yours.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10