Operation Grange

Something BIG is about to happen. I can feel it in my water.

Or I could have a dodgy tap.

AndyB wrote:

mumof6 wrote:Probably not relevant, but it has struck me that OG has proved that Jane Tanner was not a liar.

Sorry but I don't understand. In what way have they proved that Jane Tanner wasn't lying as opposed to going along with the lie for their own purposes? If, for example, Grange are trying to pin an abduction on some patsy, Jane Tanner "seeing" an abductor carrying Madeleine is helpful to them surely?

Sorry. I meant officially, not in reality. I do not believe that Tannerman was found after all these years.

OG have stated that Tannerman is real, that there was a Tannerman, Jane Tanner was therefore telling the truth.

Jane Tanner is vindicated.

I am merely wondering whether there was, maybe, a reason why this witnesses reputation would have been cleaned up? Some reason why she needs to be seen to be a reliable witness?

Or maybe there was some information given in return?

Why is it only the Yorkshire Post that have picked up that Rowley stuff?

Seems odd to me

Andrew wrote:Why is it only the Yorkshire Post that have picked up that Rowley stuff?

Seems odd to me

Very odd Andrew was just thinking the same. Normally every story to do with the McCanns is picked up by all the media and repeated parrot fashion, yet this one seems underwraps. Is it one of those fake news stories?

N.M‏ @AdirenM 2h2 hours ago
More
UK cannot prosecute the #mccann other than for FRAUD. If they had anything to do with their daughter's death it happened in Portugal.

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:Why is it only the Yorkshire Post that have picked up that Rowley stuff?

Seems odd to me

Very odd Andrew was just thinking the same.  Normally every story to do with the McCanns is picked up by all the media and repeated parrot fashion, yet this one seems underwraps.  Is it one of those fake news stories?

Perhaps they ignored or misunderstood the embargo time

... same person having a rant about the dogs on twitter as well. Because she only saw the 2:

N.M‏ @AdirenM  11m11 minutes ago
More
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @NettyCox and 3 others
NO, I saw only 2 dogs, if anyone is saying that there were 4, why should I care? There could have been 20. Fact it was OG worthless. #Mccann

2 other dogs working secretly out of the media spotlight doesn't equate to worthless for me.

froggy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:Why is it only the Yorkshire Post that have picked up that Rowley stuff?

Seems odd to me

Very odd Andrew was just thinking the same.  Normally every story to do with the McCanns is picked up by all the media and repeated parrot fashion, yet this one seems underwraps.  Is it one of those fake news stories?

Perhaps they ignored or misunderstood the embargo  time

Looks like it.

The article has been pulled.

We are sorry to say that you have found our 'sorry' page while visiting www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn't exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.

Andrew wrote:


The article has been pulled.

We are sorry to say that you have found our 'sorry' page while visiting www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn't exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.

Why would you embargo something as relatively banal as that?

Andrew wrote:... same person having a rant about the dogs on twitter as well. Because she only saw the 2:

N.M‏ @AdirenM  11m11 minutes ago
More
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @NettyCox and 3 others
NO, I saw only 2 dogs, if anyone is saying that there were 4, why should I care? There could have been 20. Fact it was OG worthless. #Mccann

2 other dogs working secretly out of the media spotlight doesn't equate to worthless for me.

Hi Andrew this is a follow up tweet from Adiren.

N.M‏
@AdirenM

Follow
More
Replying to @NettyCox @JBLittlemore and 3 others
The dogs were only taken to the places that Redwood contracted Televisions to film. It was a PR operation.
#McCann

Deleted - messed it up

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:


The article has been pulled.

We are sorry to say that you have found our 'sorry' page while visiting www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn't exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.

Why would you embargo something as relatively banal as that?

No idea.

Maybe it was just supposed to go out tomorrow, with all the others, 'after' the (presumably pre-recorded) thingy/update/whatever, this evening.

Yorkshire Post just innocently messed up a bit.

costello wrote:

Andrew wrote:... same person having a rant about the dogs on twitter as well. Because she only saw the 2:

N.M‏ @AdirenM  11m11 minutes ago
More
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @NettyCox and 3 others
NO, I saw only 2 dogs, if anyone is saying that there were 4, why should I care? There could have been 20. Fact it was OG worthless. #Mccann

2 other dogs working secretly out of the media spotlight doesn't equate to worthless for me.

Hi Andrew this is a follow up tweet from Adiren.

N.M‏
@AdirenM

Follow
More
Replying to @NettyCox @JBLittlemore and 3 others
The dogs were only taken to the places that Redwood contracted Televisions to film. It was a PR operation.
#McCann

Hiya. Yes, I've seen that (and others).

She didn't know there were 4 dogs in operation though as she only saw the 2.

The point being she has absolutely no idea what they were up to.

Andrew wrote:... same person having a rant about the dogs on twitter as well. Because she only saw the 2:

N.M‏ @AdirenM  11m11 minutes ago
More
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @NettyCox and 3 others
NO, I saw only 2 dogs, if anyone is saying that there were 4, why should I care? There could have been 20. Fact it was OG worthless. #Mccann

2 other dogs working secretly out of the media spotlight doesn't equate to worthless for me.

It's always interesting to watch someone have a meltdown like that.

If you know you are correct, why does it matter so much if other people have differing opinions? All you have to do is sit back and wait for the truth to come out.

AdirenM isn't an objective onlooker, s/he is someone trying to control the narrative.

IMO

Do you think SY have interviewed and re-interviewed the Tapas gang, Nannies,Carpenter,Edmonds,Berry,Balu,Naylor.......??
IMO, it would be strange if they haven't.

Andrew wrote:
Maybe it was just supposed to go out tomorrow, with all the others, 'after' the (presumably pre-recorded) thingy/update/whatever, this evening.

Yorkshire Post just innocently messed up a bit.

Does anybody actually know what is going out tonight, and when?

I notice there's something about Soham on Channel 5 at 9PM.

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:
Maybe it was just supposed to go out tomorrow, with all the others, 'after' the (presumably pre-recorded) thingy/update/whatever, this evening.

Yorkshire Post just innocently messed up a bit.

Does anybody actually know what is going out tonight, and when?

I notice there's something about Soham on Channel 5 at 9PM.

There is nothing, and I wonder what on earth it could be that has to have an embargo.i The only story I know that alwys is embargoed is knighthoods, perhPs that's it K and G knighted

Item on ten years just been broadcast on ITV News.

Nothing from OG though it was just a bit more than was on at lunchtime.

Andrew wrote:

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:


The article has been pulled.

We are sorry to say that you have found our 'sorry' page while visiting www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn't exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.

Why would you embargo something as relatively banal as that?

No idea.

Maybe it was just supposed to go out tomorrow, with all the others, 'after' the (presumably pre-recorded) thingy/update/whatever, this evening.

Yorkshire Post just innocently messed up a bit.

Why that paper and why pulled. I dont think it was a case of the paper messed up. I think it went out deliberately to mislead - a move by Team McCann. But had to be pulled.
Even Daily Mail online wasn't doing Mc Cann today. The Independent have an article but it s relatively unbiased. The Yorkshire Post I feel deliberately contained inaccuracies.

What is telling is the Mc Cann statement on their website. It smacks of fear of what might be printed or put out there.. and that is for a reason. They are expecting something.
They are not feeling very secure - that much is obvious. It must be for a reason.

Luna wrote:Item on ten years just been broadcast on ITV News.

It's not ten years though is it.

Or is it?

I just managed to read it before it was pulled and I thought it was quite measured. I'm not too worried by the reference to abduction because there were some encouraging bits in there, bungled burglary looking unlikely, sex offenders all but exhausted and some people coming forward with relevant information so on balance, I find that pretty encouraging. At least they sound more open minded than of old but I only read it once so I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.

Helenmeg wrote:

Andrew wrote:

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:


The article has been pulled.

We are sorry to say that you have found our 'sorry' page while visiting www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn't exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.

Why would you embargo something as relatively banal as that?

No idea.

Maybe it was just supposed to go out tomorrow, with all the others, 'after' the (presumably pre-recorded) thingy/update/whatever, this evening.

Yorkshire Post just innocently messed up a bit.

Why that paper and why pulled.  I dont think it was a case of the paper messed up.  I think it went out deliberately to mislead - a move by Team McCann. But had to be pulled.
Even Daily Mail online wasn't doing Mc Cann today. The Independent have an article but it s relatively unbiased.  The Yorkshire Post I feel deliberately contained inaccuracies.

Why the Yorkshire Post ? Hardly widely read outside of God's Own Country.

Helenmeg wrote:What is telling is the Mc Cann statement on their website. It smacks of fear of what might be printed or put out there.. and that is for a reason. They are expecting something.
They are not feeling very secure - that much is obvious. It must be for a reason.

Agree, Helenmeg.

That statement is so unusual and strange. They seem to believe something unwelcome will occur that will bring hostility down on them. Asking journalists to think of the twins!