A Simple Question.

[Carana]

I think the waffly answer is de rigeur because that's what they do.
We are left with perming one possibility from about four by my reckoning [for the waffly answer that is]. The question is why would any one of those wafflibilties be a better bet than the others?

Remember Bob Dylan and Robert Browning on what they meant by what they had written,when asked.
The answers were remarkably similar, synthesing and paraphrasing it summed up as:
"God knows I have forgotten already but you make it mean whatever you want it to mean"

Waffle would seem to be the option of choice, and that's certainly what I've noticed in a number of cases, but not in this one (at least not at the time of the most recent pressers on the case).

Anything could change, obviously, and if ever it turned out that any of the T9 were involved, then I expect that there would be a PR egg-on-face removal unit to deal with it.

On the other hand, and bearing in mind that the UK does actually give thought to media relations, progressive cop speak waffle could have covered all bases. So far, I can't see any evidence of that.

Strategy debriefs provide an interesting insight, IMO, even if they have to be couched in gentle terms.

[faithlilly]

Waffle would seem to be the option of choice, and that's certainly what I've noticed in a number of cases, but not in this one (at least not at the time of the most recent pressers on the case).

Anything could change, obviously, and if ever it turned out that any of the T9 were involved, then I expect that there would be a PR egg-on-face removal unit to deal with it.

On the other hand, and bearing in mind that the UK does actually give thought to media relations, progressive cop speak waffle could have covered all bases. So far, I can't see any evidence of that.

Strategy debriefs provide an interesting insight, IMO, even if they have to be couched in gentle terms.

The thing that interests me is why journalists asked the same question in 2017 that had already been answered in 2013. Where certain journalists privy to information that is not known to the general public ?

[Alice Purjorick]

I think denial is more accurate..

You believe Mr Rowley is in denial of something ?
Tell us more.

[Carana]

SY are extremely mindful of the public interest in this case and would spend any amount of money if they knew they could solve it and bring someone to justice.  They will have looked at every scenario early on including the parents but now they are casting their nets further afield to see what is dragged up.  I fear they are no closer to solving this case successfully than the PJ were when it was originally shelved.

John, I agree with most of that, although "any amount of money" seems a bit OTT to me.

A budget presumably has to be presented and approved, even if there is a percentage for contingencies. Most of the donkey work has been apparently been done now, and I presume that that means that available info has been entered into the database, sifted, whatever can be eliminated has been... and so staff time is now vastly reduced.

However this was packaged ("Madeleine), there are still the other kids who were sexually abused, or on the verge of, in that neck of the woods. They deserve answers as well.

[Alice Purjorick]

Waffle would seem to be the option of choice, and that's certainly what I've noticed in a number of cases, but not in this one (at least not at the time of the most recent pressers on the case).

Anything could change, obviously, and if ever it turned out that any of the T9 were involved, then I expect that there would be a PR egg-on-face removal unit to deal with it.

On the other hand, and bearing in mind that the UK does actually give thought to media relations, progressive cop speak waffle could have covered all bases. So far, I can't see any evidence of that.

Strategy debriefs provide an interesting insight, IMO, even if they have to be couched in gentle terms.

Jeez Carana are you one of they/them ?

[Carana]

The thing that interests me is why journalists asked the same question in 2017 that had already been answered in 2013. Where certain journalists privy to information that is not known to the general public ?

Perhaps to see if there was anything new to report?

Even if there isn't, it still fills a few lines to say that there isn't (plus a blurb of copy/paste of history).

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because they were two very different questions, the first being a question of logic that could be answered based on the information in the question, the second being a matter of opinion based on an individual’s understanding of the case.

Explain the logic that enabled you to answer the first question with a yes or no answer then.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So a reporter would say....are the McCanns or their friends being considered suspects in your investigation......to which ( name of officer ) would reply.....I am unwilling to answer any questions regarding suspects. Can you really see that happening?

yes, very easily, why not?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Of course they wouldn't, that would be against all good police practise.  My own belief is that they had to investigate the parents in order to satisfy themselves that the culprit or culprits lay elsewhere.  The fact that they went on to look at others speaks for itself imo.

It was against all good police practise to tip off the media that a famous popstar's house was about to be raided in a child sex investigation, it doesn't mean it didnt happen. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because the Portuguese have primacy.

How much funds are the Portuguese requesting to investigate the McCanns? 

[jassi]

It was against all good police practise to tip off the media that a famous popstar's house was about to be raided in a child sex investigation, it doesn't mean it didnt happen.

At least the Portuguese can't be blamed for that one.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The thing that interests me is why journalists asked the same question in 2017 that had already been answered in 2013. Where certain journalists privy to information that is not known to the general public ?

If any journalist got a whiff that the McCanns were being investigated by the police again it would be all over the papers.  No reason on earth why it wouldn't be and it would be a sensational story that would certainly sell a lot of papers.

[faithlilly]

If any journalist got a whiff that the McCanns were being investigated by the police again it would be all over the papers.  No reason on earth why it wouldn't be and it would be a sensational story that would certainly sell a lot of papers.

Until the McCanns were charged not one newspaper editor would dare touch a story like that with a barge pole.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Until the McCanns were charged not one newspaper editor would dare touch a story like that with a barge pole.

Tell me why not?

[faithlilly]

Tell me why not?

Don’t be silly sir. Imagine if the investigation came to nothing.