Wandering Off Topic

[faithlilly]

That's what the evidence strongly suggests. The opinions are clear to see and were expressed before OG began, so owe nothing to any early work done by the Met as the opinions pre-dated it.

And almost 12 years later and millions of pounds and still no answers.

[G-Unit]

And almost 12 years later and millions of pounds and still no answers.

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

[Eleanor]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

You would think that, wouldn't you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's not something I've said btw, because I don't know what happened, unlike some.

The McCanns claimed their daughter was abducted immediately she disappeared. They used the media at every opportunity to spread that message. They were very persuasive and slowly but surely it became a fact rather than a hypothesis, although there was little or no evidence to support it. The only fact any investigation has uncovered is that Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007 and hasn't been seen since. OG has offered no evidence to support the hypothesis they have spent 15 years investigating. Unless you count the Commissioner's declaration; she wasn't old enough to decide to go off and start a new life. There you have it; the deductions those heading up the Met are capable of making.

You missed out the bit after them using the media at every opportunity and were soon being implicated in their daughter’s death by the very same media.  So, not that persuasive it would seem!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

Has she?  Has the case been closed with the police admitting defeat?  I must have missed that headline.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The McCanns killed Madeleine and these people had been suckered into thinking otherwise.

McCanns = Masters Of Persuasion and Deception.  Innit.

[faithlilly]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

She certainly was. When police budgets as well as budgets for every other government department were being slashed OG has been a shocking waste of money.

A government who can be threatened into investigating a case that not even the police believed was their responsibility is not real government at all.

[Vertigo Swirl]

She certainly was. When police budgets as well as budgets for every other government department were being slashed OG has been a shocking waste of money.

A government who can be threatened into investigating a case that not even the police believed was their responsibility is not real government at all.

Jenny Jones isn’t the police, you do know that don’t you?  What do you think would have been a suitable amount of money to spend on reviewing and reinvestigating the disappearance of a small child?  A pound?  A thousand?  A million maybe?  Should the police have a cap per investigation- spend x and even if you are seemingly making progress then once the money’s spent no more investigating, let the criminals go scot-free?   What do you suggest?   Perhaps you think Madeleine’s disappearance was so well and thoroughly investigated by the PJ that there was no point reviewing it anyway?  Yes, that will be it.

[Mr Gray]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

Because of Grange CB is behind bars for a vicious rape.. There are another 5 charges pending... Would you prefer if he was still free

[Brietta]

That's what the evidence strongly suggests. The opinions are clear to see and were expressed before OG began, so owe nothing to any early work done by the Met as the opinions pre-dated it.

You've got it wrong yet again.

What the evidence strongly suggests is that three influential people who had access to the scoping exercise commissioned by the previous Home Secretary and were privy to its content, were of a mind to allow a review of all available evidence from all available sources to be given proper professional scrutiny.

Had no investigative opportunities were presented as a result ~ that would have been it.  No further procedures would have occurred and Madeleine's case would have been abandoned yet again.

Had the evidence which resulted from the review been different, Scotland Yard would have followed those investigative possibilities.
But the volume of the evidence which was either new or which had been ignored and/or misunderstood or misinterpreted by original investigators was followed.  And there was a huge volume of it.

You really do appear to have quite a 'thing' about Madeleine McCann being looked for.

Former home secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.

This was completed in March last year, but Mr McCann said Mrs May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive".

The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, have written an open letter to Mr Cameron asking for an "independent, transparent and comprehensive" review of all information about Madeleine's disappearance.

They said: "A key piece of the 'jigsaw' could easily have been overlooked and not joined up with another. We have tried in vain to get the authorities in the UK and Portugal to play their part.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-scotland-yard-to-aid-179934

[Brietta]

That's not something I've said btw, because I don't know what happened, unlike some.

The McCanns claimed their daughter was abducted immediately she disappeared. They used the media at every opportunity to spread that message. They were very persuasive and slowly but surely it became a fact rather than a hypothesis, although there was little or no evidence to support it. The only fact any investigation has uncovered is that Madeleine McCann disappeared on 3rd May 2007 and hasn't been seen since. OG has offered no evidence to support the hypothesis they have spent 15 years investigating. Unless you count the Commissioner's declaration; she wasn't old enough to decide to go off and start a new life. There you have it; the deductions those heading up the Met are capable of making.

If you admit to knowing nothing, why are you so dogmatic in promoting the opinions of those who do lay claims to omniscience?

[Brietta]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

What other criminal cases where there are active and strong evidential leads available to be followed, do you and Ms Jones advocate that properly constituted police investigations should be vetoed?

[Brietta]

Questioned at the time; MPA member Jenny Jones has now questioned the wisdom of that decision at a time when funds are short.

She told the Mail on Sunday: ‘The police should not take this case up in this way. It is ludicrous.

‘This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources.’

She was proved correct, wasn't she?
https://metro.co.uk/2011/05/15/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-is-ludicrous-waste-of-police-funds-10665/

One wonders how much of those millions has been taken up with FOI requests on each and every aspect of investigation into Madeleine McCann's unsolved case by those who by their actions, prove they hope it never is solved.

SNIP
Dear Home Office,

re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case

During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.

Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.

Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:

1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?

2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?

3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?

4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?

5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?

6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?

7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?

8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?

9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?

If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.

Yours faithfully,    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma


Is it normal practice for concerned members of the public to tout for money to run personal campaigns or does it smack of abuse of the system?
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now

[G-Unit]

One wonders how much of those millions has been taken up with FOI requests on each and every aspect of investigation into Madeleine McCann's unsolved case by those who by their actions, prove they hope it never is solved.

SNIP
Dear Home Office,

re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case

During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.

Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.

Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:

1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?

2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?

3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?

4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?

5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?

6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?

7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?

8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?

9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?

If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.

Yours faithfully,    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma


Is it normal practice for concerned members of the public to tout for money to run personal campaigns or does it smack of abuse of the system?
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now

I don't know how responses to FOI requests are funded, but it's difficult to see how the response to the request quoted would affect the costs of Operation Grange. It was addressed to and answered by the Home Office.

Is it relevant to the opinions held by Cameron, May and Stephenson? Possibly. They may have been influenced by the report produced by Jim Gamble, but that was also the opinions of one person.

Whatdotheyknow.com is a website which helps members of the public to submit FOI requests and saves them and the answers in it's database. They need donations because they volunteer their services.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know how responses to FOI requests are funded, but it's difficult to see how the response to the request quoted would affect the costs of Operation Grange. It was addressed to and answered by the Home Office.

Is it relevant to the opinions held by Cameron, May and Stephenson? Possibly. They may have been influenced by the report produced by Jim Gamble, but that was also the opinions of one person.

Whatdotheyknow.com is a website which helps members of the public to submit FOI requests and saves them and the answers in it's database. They need donations because they volunteer their services.

I thought on here we were of the view that politicians don't always wear their hearts honestly and openly on their sleeves?  Have you not considered the possibility that these High-Ups were merely paying lip service to the McCanns and pretending to be sympathetic but privately harboured huge suspicions which is why they asked for a review in the first place, to try and nail those crafty McCanns once and for all?  I mean, they could have instructed the Met to insert the words "as if the abduction happened in the UK" simply to lull the McCs into a false sense of security, I mean why not?  You entertain other conspiratorial theories without any evidence so surely this one's as good as any?