£11 Million spent - time to end?

A few more reporting (re-hashing) it..


https://news.google.com/news/i/story?ncl=d3GixR_bD0GJLDMm9ABkTrWy0RrUM&q=madeleine+mccann&lr=English&hl=en

Late again , but if (IMO) OG was designed to be a cover up it would have been a cheap ' n ' cheerful affair , a few officers and over quickly. I've stated before I think it's all been planed. AR was the mate, friendly and supportive. Then NW comes along and slams the shutters down. Yes OG have frequently said the Mc Canns aren't suspects. So what, how many times have we heard the police say ' Yep we think they dunnit '

The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

May be the 29 crimes didn't have the scrutiny of the internet at the time, much different from the McCann case now.

You seem to be very perturbed about SY and the McCann case, does it matter to you that much? As people have said previously the Madeleine investigation could have been closed down a long time ago but it hasn't been.

What are they going to do, bribe everyone of the PJ plus Amaral who has had his assets frozen for 6 years or so. Are they going to scupper his appeal?

A ) Because those cases are by and large very historical , not 8 years ago. There wasn't the social media scrutiny back then

B ) Because I have experience of the police and how they work , not just based on press reports

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

You don't have any evidence to show it is not a bona fide investigation, you have only blind faith in police corruption it looks like AndyB. I am quite happy to wait for the outcome and until then trust what they are doing, the same as Sonia Poulton really, I see no point in criticising either until an outcome is known.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

May be the 29 crimes didn't have the scrutiny of the internet at the time, much different from the McCann case now.

You seem to be very perturbed about SY and the McCann case, does it matter to you that much?

Of course I'm perturbed at SY corruption! They're rubbing it in our faces and getting away with it.

The McCann case is no different - they're actively covering something up (IMO) and it matters to me a great deal. Are you saying I shouldn't care, should just tug my forelock and be happy that the McCanns get away with it simply because they're collateral beneficiaries to establishment corruption?

Can you not see that the 29 times each represent a separate incidence of the Met corruptly covering up a serious crime? Can you not see the implications for Grange that follow from that?

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

You don't have any evidence to show it is not a bona fide investigation, you have only blind faith in police corruption it looks like AndyB.  I am quite happy to wait for the outcome and until then trust what they are doing, the same as Sonia Poulton really, I see no point in criticising either until an outcome is known.  

I don't have any evidence about Grange but we do have ample evidence of Met corruption and its covering up of establishment crimes. It's hardly blind faith to extrapolate from that the idea that they're not suddenly squeaky clean.

PMR wrote:A ) Because those cases are by and large very historical , not 8 years ago. There wasn't the social media scrutiny back then

B ) Because I have experience of the police and how they work , not just based on press reports

So what's changed in the mean time? Besides there's no social media scrutiny of Grange. As others have said, we have no idea what they're doing because they're not telling us. Nor will they ever. We are just expected to trust them despite their past behaviour

And in respect of B, what is your experience of Met corruption and how it works, or are you trying to say that there now isn't any?

Just watching the BBC News and there has been a mention of the cover up of 29 cases. It was actually Met police officers who came forward with information about the cover ups. I can't see the Met covering up any more cases especially this one!

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

You don't have any evidence to show it is not a bona fide investigation, you have only blind faith in police corruption it looks like AndyB.  I am quite happy to wait for the outcome and until then trust what they are doing, the same as Sonia Poulton really, I see no point in criticising either until an outcome is known.  

I don't have any evidence about Grange but we do have ample evidence of Met corruption and its covering up of establishment crimes. It's hardly blind faith to extrapolate from that the idea that they're not suddenly squeaky clean.

So it is blind faith on your part too. Because there has been some corruption you then tar every case and officer with the same brush?? Perhaps you could explain what exactly they have been doing for 4 years? Why a review turned into an investigation and why there are so many officers/detectives on it? As I said early, a couple of three in an office would pacify the public and would cost a fraction to sweep things under the carpet - but 37 detectives, sorry I don't buy it.

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

May be the 29 crimes didn't have the scrutiny of the internet at the time, much different from the McCann case now.

You seem to be very perturbed about SY and the McCann case, does it matter to you that much?

Of course I'm perturbed at SY corruption! They're rubbing it in our faces and getting away with it.

The McCann case is no different - they're actively covering something up (IMO) and it matters to me a great deal. Are you saying I shouldn't care, should just tug my forelock and be happy that the McCanns get away with it simply because they're collateral beneficiaries to establishment corruption?

Can you not see that the 29 times each represent a separate incidence of the Met corruptly covering up a serious crime? Can you not see the implications for Grange that follow from that?

I like that phrase - sums the situation up perfectl

Its perhaps apposite to remind people of the concerns that have been expressed to the IPCC about the man in charge of the Met:
https://nationalinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ipcc-hogan-howe.pdf

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

You don't have any evidence to show it is not a bona fide investigation, you have only blind faith in police corruption it looks like AndyB.  I am quite happy to wait for the outcome and until then trust what they are doing, the same as Sonia Poulton really, I see no point in criticising either until an outcome is known.  

I don't have any evidence about Grange but we do have ample evidence of Met corruption and its covering up of establishment crimes. It's hardly blind faith to extrapolate from that the idea that they're not suddenly squeaky clean.

So it is blind faith on your part too.  Because there has been some corruption you then tar every case and officer with the same brush??  Perhaps you could explain what exactly they have been doing for 4 years?  Why a review turned into an investigation and why there are so many officers/detectives on it?  As I said early, a couple of three in an office would pacify the public and would cost a fraction to sweep things under the carpet - but 37 detectives, sorry I don't buy it.

It isn't blind faith. The corruption hasn't been one or two bad apples, its systemic. Don't forget that the Met aren't independent from the government despite what they may claim and Grange is a home office project, not a true police investigation

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:The Met are now under investigation for 29 different times that they have corruptly covered up wrong doing by the establishment. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5670/ipcc-launches-13-more-probes-into-paedophile-cover-ups

Yet people still seem to believe that the 12 million and counting is to fund a genuine investigation into some unknown crime concerning the disappearance of a child in a foreign jurisdiction. Seriously? Other than blind faith, why?

May be the 29 crimes didn't have the scrutiny of the internet at the time, much different from the McCann case now.

You seem to be very perturbed about SY and the McCann case, does it matter to you that much?

Of course I'm perturbed at SY corruption! They're rubbing it in our faces and getting away with it.

The McCann case is no different - they're actively covering something up (IMO) and it matters to me a great deal. Are you saying I shouldn't care, should just tug my forelock and be happy that the McCanns get away with it simply because they're collateral beneficiaries to establishment corruption?

Can you  not see that the 29 times each represent a separate incidence of the Met corruptly covering up a serious crime? Can you not see the implications for Grange that follow from that?

I'm not saying you shouldn't care at all, of course we all care, that's why most of us have been here for 8 years waiting for justice for Madeleine.

But we all have to be patience and see what happens with the PJ/SY investigation, if we all think it's a cover up at the end of the road we can all let rip and make as much noise about it as we can, but in the meantime we have to let things take its course.  After all we've waited 8 years, what's another year or so if it brings the perpetrators to justice.

I'll say it again, you seem to be so wound up about this "cover up" that it matters to you a great deal.  Why actually, what difference will it make to your life one way or the other?

Yep agreed @dfm a little bit of patience needed, slowly, slowly

Did the British Ambassador in Greece immediately fly over to Kos when Kerry Needham`s little boy went missing ?

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote: I'm not saying you shouldn't care at all, of course we all care, that's why most of us have been here for 8 years waiting for justice for Madeleine.

But we all have to be patience  and see what happens with the PJ/SY investigation, if we all think it's a cover up at the end of the road we can all let rip and make as much noise about it as we can, but in the meantime we have to let things take its course.  After all we've waited 8 years, what's another year or so if it brings the perpetrators to justice.

I'll say it again, you seem to be so wound up about this "cover up" that it matters to you a great deal.  Why actually, what difference will it make to your life one way or the other?

Seriously? A corrupt establishment uses the Met to cover up their crimes and you don't think I should be getting at least a bit wound up about it?

You seem convinced that the perpetrators will be brought to justice but I'm getting wound up because its perfectly obvious to me that they won't be. Your suggestion that I wait and let things take their course only makes sense if you believe that the investigation is genuine but I don't believe that it isn't for the reasons that I've outlined above. I hope I'm wrong but, as I said earlier to Andrew, I can only go where my analysis and logic take me.

I'll ask you again: Can you  not see that the 29 times each represent a separate incidence of the Met corruptly covering up a serious crime? Can you not see the implications for Grange that follow from that?

Mimi wrote:Did the British Ambassador in Greece immediately fly over to Kos when Kerry Needham`s little boy went missing ?

Mimi hope this helps - just to give you a gist:  Once Ben was reported missing the Needham family went to the police station and we're stuck there all day.  Kerry's dad had had enough and went to a local hotel to use their telephone - this part came next:

‘Hello, British Embassy.’ Dad spoke to someone for five minutes. He explained everything that was going on, ending on how unsatisfactory the police response had been so far. The embassy man listened. Then he asked, ‘Have you been interviewed?’ ‘Yes,’ Dad said. ‘Was there somebody to translate for you?’ ‘Yes. Although she was only a shopkeeper.’ ‘Is your daughter by herself?’ ‘No, she has me, her mother and brothers. We’re all together.’ There was a pause. Then the man said, ‘Okay, well, it sounds as though everything is being done correctly. There’s nothing we can do.’ He wished us luck and rang off. Manos spoke very good English but I doubt he knew half the words Dad came out with as he slammed the phone down. The air was blue. I hadn’t seen Dad this livid since my days dodging school. ‘You’re told that the British Embassy is there for you if you get into trouble abroad,’ he raged. ‘Well, that’s a joke. They don’t want to know.’ The man had been brisk, unsympathetic and, in Dad’s opinion given the situation, borderline rude. Dad reached his arms around all of us. The huddle calmed him down and reassured the rest of us. ‘The police aren’t doing anything and the embassy doesn’t want anything to do with us,’ he said. ‘We’re on our own.’

Kerry re Assistance for the Mccs:

The British ambassador was on camera pledging aid, the Portuguese ambassador in London did the same, and was that the spokesman for Tony Blair saying that the prime minister was following the case personally? Not only that, the deputy PM, John Prescott, raised the subject in a House of Commons speech and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, called the McCanns direct, all within days of Madeleine’s disappearance. I could not have been happier that officials were taking the situation seriously. But I have to be honest; it opened an old wound for me. Where was my help? Where was my statement at Prime Minister’s Questions? Where was my ambassadorial aid? In 1991, we couldn’t even get the consul to become involved.

OMG that`s awful - poor Kerry.  So it seems they didn`t even get to speak to the British Ambassador, but a Greek member of staff.

It makes one wonder if this is the usual reaction of British Ambassadors to Britons abroad.

Thanks Mo - very interesting.  It really highlights the over-reaction by the British Ambassador in Portugal.

AndyB wrote: Seriously? A corrupt establishment uses the Met to cover up their crimes and you don't think I should be getting at least a bit wound up about it?

You seem convinced that the perpetrators will be brought to justice but I'm getting wound up because its perfectly obvious to me that they won't be. Your suggestion that I wait and let things take their course only makes sense if you believe that the investigation is genuine but I don't believe that it isn't for the reasons that I've outlined above. I hope I'm wrong but, as I said earlier to Andrew, I can only go where my analysis and logic take me.

I'll ask you again: Can you  not see that the 29 times each represent a separate incidence of the Met corruptly covering up a serious crime? Can you not see the implications for Grange that follow from that?

I didn't say I was convinced that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, I said wait and see what happens when the PJ/SY investigation comes to an end.

You sound as wound up as someone else I could mention, which I won't.  I'm not losing sleep over what the PJ/SY may be doing but certain people seem to be.

The Mccanns certainly got preferential treatment - just wondering if it was because of friends of friends


I assume this is what normally happens


2015
British boy, 7, who died in tragic Alps skiing accident plunged 320ft to his death

Flaine, a resort near the border with Switzerland, is popular with British families and is just an hour and 15 minutes drive from the international airport in Geneva.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We can confirm the death of a British national in Flaine, France, on April 10.

“We are providing consular assistance to the family at this difficult time.”

Mo, this happened on 10th April and was published in the press at that time -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3034732/British-boy-7-dies-family-skiing-holiday-getting-separated-parents-piste-falling-cliff-trying-them.html

The boy went off piste and went through the woods and went off the edge of a cliff apparently when he'd been told not to go through that area.

Obviously his parents didn't have a direct line to Cameron or any other government official as many other parents who take their children on holiday every year don't.  The McCanns thought they were "special" and obviously used their connections for all they were worth and knew they could use their connections.  Whether it was because GM was part of the nuclear children's committee (I can't remember what the exact title is) or some other committee but obviously he and his Mrs were frightened of losing their esteemed positions in "society" if they were ever found out as to what actually happened to poor Madeleine.

ETA: COMARE is the committee (Quango) I was trying to refer to.

Cheers AndyB, your input on this thread today has certainly raised a few issues for me.

Thanks DFM - I was just pointing out that when there's a tragedy abroad it's just the Consular assistance provided. The Mcc's used influential friends at home to make the links to TPTB - but I don't think TPTB were long in dropping them. The information I posted up thread is very interesting in how the Mccs did it which then became a Trial By Media.