Operation Grange

chirpyinsect wrote:
My feelings on OG are purely my own take on things. I struggle to believe that 34 officers were working blind but were there really 34 of them? Could be a good front for covert funding for something else. I mean when do we ever hear of x million being put aside for 1 missing person? A special funding from the Home Office, for an investigation with no jurisdiction. Nah!

Quite. But what? (Rhetorical). Perhaps more importantly, why use the McCanns as cover? If something needs covertly funding it gets funded covertly without any obvious cloak and dagger stuff being played out for the public. It strikes me that whatever it is that's going on, it relates in some way back to the McCanns. If we knew what it was then perhaps the link would be obvious.

Btw, I don't think that, if there is paedophilia behind this, that the McCanns would necessarily be under the bus. The threat of exposure and being sent to prison as a nonce is a very effective way to ensure silence without the need for state sanctioned murder and it's possible exposure. It's been used as a means to blackmail people before I'm sure

Oh, and thanks for the detailed reply

Blimey Chirps - Your 'source' is someone you don't know from Adam and only spoken to on 3 occasions on facebook.

We must also remember that OG didn't begin straight away. To begin with it was a Portuguese led investigation. Something was going on imo that necessitated a cover up by the UK. Ambassador on site within hours. When does that ever happen?
GA sidelined could have been because he was too near the truth but could also be because he refused to capitulate.
I'd love to have faith in our police but they are the instrument of government and ultimately will do what they are told.
We hear more and more about corruption in the force from the top down ie Hillsborough, so why is it such a stretch to believe cover up here?
This is not to say there aren't decent, honest cops out there btw.

Andrew wrote:Blimey Chirps - Your 'source' is someone you don't know from Adam and only spoken to on 3 occasions on facebook.

Source is rather a dramatic description but didn't really know what else to call her. She was the source of the info about the previous holiday. I may only have spoken 3 times to her but I know a lot more about her than that. Obviously it is neither relevant or correct to detail those things here.
Suffice to say, I believe her to be as genuine as it is possible to ascertain . I certainly know more about her than I know about nearly everyone on here.
You sound very distrusting Andrew. I passed on the information I was given in good faith. It won't change the world one way or another but I thought it was interesting and not something I had heard before.

Fair enough, Chirps. No not distrusting at all and apologies if it came across that way.

chirpyinsect wrote:

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:
My feelings on OG are purely my own take on things. I struggle to believe that 34 officers were working blind but were there really 34 of them? Could be a good front for covert funding for something else. I mean when do we ever hear of x million being put aside for 1 missing person? A special funding from the Home Office, for an investigation with no jurisdiction. Nah!

Quite. But what? (Rhetorical). Perhaps more importantly, why use the McCanns as cover? If something needs covertly funding it gets funded covertly without any obvious cloak and dagger stuff being played out for the public. It strikes me that whatever it is that's going on, it relates in some way back to the McCanns. If we knew what it was then perhaps the link would be obvious.

Btw, I don't think that, if there is paedophilia behind this, that the McCanns would necessarily be under the bus. The threat of exposure and being sent to prison as a nonce is a very effective way to ensure silence without the need for state sanctioned murder and it's possible exposure. It's been used as a means to blackmail people before I'm sure

Oh, and thanks for the detailed reply

We must also remember that OG didn't begin straight away. To begin with it was a Portuguese led investigation. Something was going on imo that necessitated a cover up by the UK. Ambassador on site within hours. When does that ever happen?
GA sidelined could have been because he was too near the truth but could also be because he refused to capitulate.
I'd love to have faith in our police but they are the instrument of government and ultimately will do what they are told.
We hear more and more about corruption in the force from the top down ie Hillsborough, so why is it such a stretch to believe cover up here?
This is not to say there aren't decent, honest cops out there btw.

That is exactly right and should never be forgotten.

AndyB wrote:
Your views are very similar, if not identical, to my own. I have believed for a while that the McCanns themselves are not being protected but are the collateral beneficiaries of an operation to cover something up, although I have no idea what of course.

There remains (to me at least) the possibility that the whole thing was some kind of multi-agency psy-op, knowledge of which might or might not have made it to the top of government. OG might have kicked off knowing this, or might have since discovered it and are now unsure where to go, or they might be blissfully unaware.

Whatever is going on behind the walls of Operation Grange, it is the apparent lack of urgency that gets most people's goat, I think.

Andrew wrote:Fair enough, Chirps. No not distrusting at all and apologies if it came across that way.

I can see where you were coming from in thinking why should we believe what some stranger on tinternet tells us second hand, so no offence.
But as far as I know there is no reason for my "friend" to invent anything. She is a smart, well-informed individual with a good reputation around my way so I'll take her at face value unless proved otherwise.Whether her friend is trustworthy or not, I have no idea of course, but I think my contact will have sussed it out pretty thoroughly.

PMR wrote:People say OGs remit is to treat Maddies disappearance as an abduction therefore they won't question the parents,but (as stated) her parents were the last to see her properly so they would HAVE to be questioned as witnesses if nothing else. Personally I don't hold with the if they had been questioned we would know about it angle and that is why. I have said more than once if OG was a whitewash it would have ended years ago and the dead Patsy would have been found. To me the previous size of the team,then the reduction etc indicate that there is more than one person and more than crime being investigated

I still say that although their remit was to treat case as an abduction - A Redwood did state (around October 2013 I think) that they were thinking that she may not have left the apartment alive - that was one of their lines of thinking. That was a major step - it told the genenral public (and Mc Canns) that the child was being considered as likely dead - which basically denied the abduction theory..

If OG were destined from beginning to 'cover up / whitewash ' then wouldn't it be a silly move to start saying she did not leave apartment alive?- The fact he did say that she may've been dead means they found something to support that in the apartment.... he had to base that statement on something - as it was a major move away from abduction

I still say that although their remit was to treat case as an abduction - A Redwood did state (around October 2013 I think) that they were thinking that she may not have left the apartment alive - that was one of their lines of thinking. That was a major step - it told the genenral public (and Mc Canns) that the child was being considered as likely dead - which basically denied the abduction theory..

If OG were destined from beginning to 'cover up / whitewash ' then wouldn't it be a silly move to start saying she did not leave apartment alive?- The fact he did say that she may've been dead means they found something to support that in the apartment.... he had to base that statement on something - as it was a major move away from abduction

Helenmeg

Ah but didn't AR give the us burglator theory? In other words M was abducted but might not have been alive at the time. Of all the preposterous theories that have surrounded this case, that had to be the biggest doozy of them all.

Helenmeg wrote:
If OG were destined from beginning to 'cover up / whitewash ' then wouldn't it be a silly move to start saying she did not leave apartment alive?-     The fact he did say that she may've been dead means they found something to support that in the apartment.... he had to base that statement on something - as it was a major move away from abduction

I've said before I don't think its a cover up,OG have investigated as if an abduction took place,this is what they have done,their line of thinking that she may of not left the apartment alive is from the burglary gone wrong,OG''s problem imo is how to extract themselves from this,they either declare they think that Madeleine is sadly dead and produce some evidence to back this up,or they declare they have wasted £12 million in not having a full understanding of what happened as per DSI Duthie words back in April.

Can you imagine if every case of a missing person was investigated purely on the statements of the last people to see that person alive? Statements that have later been shown to be false. Oh well never mind Mr Hazell/ Philpott, etc, we know you done it but we're not allowed to stray from the remit.
When the police begin an enquiry they have to set out with no preconceived notions. I think that is part of basic training. Assume nothing. Accept nothing at face value and believe nobody until you can prove they are truthful.
Investigations are organic in that they must be free to wander where the evidence leads. I cannot think of a situation where a team would be told to look at one scenario, and one scenario only. So the blindingly obvious is staring 34 officers in the face. They can clearly see there is no chance of an abduction having happened, yet they carry on down the same path for 5 years.
What I want to know is why has it taken so lon?. I don't buy the "so much evidence to sift through" nonsense.
34 officers x7 hours a day x 5 days a week x (say) 4 years equals nearly quarter of a million man hours. That's a lot of paper shuffling.

When questioned about what did 30 plus officers do all day,Hogan Howe said there was an awful lot of translations to be done,does that mean that part of the team were just doing that and not actually investigating anything? Where are the remaining two or three officers looking? Madeleine disappeared in Portugal not London.

Operation Grange is an investigative review by London's Metropolitan Police Service into the circumstances of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The operation, conducted by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command, is led by Detective Chief Inspector Andrew Redwood and he is supported by a further twenty-eight detectives and seven other staff. The review is overseen by the Gold Group management structure. The cost of the operation, which has been funded out of a special fund, has amounted to several million pounds. The review was launched in May 2011 following a request to Scotland Yard from Home Secretary Theresa May, with the support of the Prime Minister David Cameron. The issue of whether this request was the result of "threats" or "persuasion" from Rebekah Brooks was one of the issues raised at the Leveson Inquiry

I would doubt many of the 28 officers were fluent in Portuguese but perhaps that's what the 7 other staff were doing.

I would love an update from Nichola Wall and her thoughts on it so far. She does work in silence though, that's true.

OG is overseen by the Gold Group management structure. I had no idea what that meant but found this FOI request which explains it in part.

Dear Ms Nickson,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013120001609

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/12/2013. I note
you seek access to the following information:

What is the purpose of Gold Groups? What criteria have to be passed for a
Gold group to be set up? What is the usual make up of the Gold Group in
terms of numbers and rank? How many Gold Groups are set up each year? eg
2010 -2013 How many meetings are average for each Gold group?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

I will answer your questions in turn:

At questions 1 &2 you asked:

What is the purpose of Gold Groups?

What criteria have to be passed for a Gold group to be set up?
The MPS response is

A Gold Group is a meeting designed to add value to the police response to
an internal or external incident, crime or other matter. This involves
bringing together appropriately skilled and qualified internal or external
stakeholders who can advise, guide or otherwise support the management of
an effective response to the identified incident, crime or other matter.

The purpose of any Gold Group should be to ensure the effectiveness of the
ongoing police response and, if confidence issues exist for the
victim/victim's family and/or the community, to resolve or prevent the
escalation of their impact.

At question 3 you asked:

What is the usual make up of the Gold Group in terms of numbers and rank?
The MPS response is

The Gold Group should be run by an ACPO lead (Commander or above) or if
locally on Borough, a member of the Senior Leadership Team, normally
Superintendent or above.

The Gold Group could be made up of various stakeholders and professionals
from other interested agencies.

There would be a range of ranks and officers who would perform a relevant
or interested role and there may also be IAG members (Independent Advisory
Groups).

At question 4 you asked:

How many Gold Groups are set up each year? eg 2010 -2013
The MPS response is

No definitive list of Gold Groups exists corporately.

At question 5 you asked:

How many meetings are average for each Gold group?
The MPS response is

There is no fixed recommendation around number of meetings held. It would
be entirely dependent on the nature of the incident and potential areas of
vulnerability, learning and whether this would be dealt with long term.
It may be that only one Gold Group is required or several.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email
or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2372 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SC&O Information Manager
In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.



Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).



Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

I can't see that officers would be involved in translation of documents. That would be a skilled job, well beyond the capability of most serving officers.
Once translated, all that data would then need to be entered into a computer data base, probably by clerical staff, before any 'detecting' could take place.
So, either 30 officers was in reality 30 personnel, or the 30 officers were off doing something else that didn't require translation.

For anyone who has nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon, this makes for fascinating reading. It explains exactly what a gold group is. Well, it does if you have a degree in Double Dutch.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/committees/x-cop/2008/080605/08/index.html&ved=0ahUKEwjl1pvw5ZPQAhXDnRoKHWkoBNwQFggmMAU&usg=AFQjCNHGTLlF4LIyhLGAbhQ3tlPiQe7e3A

froggy wrote:I can't see that officers would be involved in translation of documents. That would be a skilled job, well beyond the capability of most serving officers.
Once translated, all that data would then need to be entered into a computer data base, probably by clerical staff, before any 'detecting' could take place.
So, either 30 officers was in reality 30 personnel, or the 30 officers were off doing something else that didn't require translation.

Hogan Howe tells us that 30 officers were involved in the translations.

Listen from 1-20.
One other thing,he also says that its a PJ investigation.

I presume he means investigating the translations.  They probably interviewed Portuguese speaking people, who would then have their statements translated and he probably meant investigating those.  We know he isn't good at remembering things and explaining , he didn't even know what Op Grange was and he has let slip the murder word on a couple of occasions?

"that line of enquiry will be the conclusion of this investigation"

I'd wish they'd bloody well hurry up.

BHH doesn't actually say the 30 officers translated the material. He said they had to be translated. Why would there be 30 fluent Portuguese speakers working as serving officers in the Met?

chirpyinsect wrote:BHH doesn't actually say the 30 officers translated the material. He said they had to be translated. Why would there be 30 fluent Portuguese speakers working as serving officers in the Met?

No but when questioned why it takes 30 officers he gave the impression translating was part of their job,investigating obviously wasn't top of the list.

Heisenburg wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:BHH doesn't actually say the 30 officers translated the material. He said they had to be translated. Why would there be 30 fluent Portuguese speakers working as serving officers in the Met?

No but when questioned why it takes 30 officers he gave the impression translating was part of their job,investigating obviously wasn't top of the list.

He was waffling. For all his high rank, he's not the brightest of people.

Nicked from twitter:

N.M ‏@AdirenM 20m20 minutes ago
In fact Redwood retirement was very oportunistic as PT was going to file a complaint to UK GOV about his alleged crimes in Algarve. #mccann