Re: £11 Million spent - time to end?

**candyfloss** Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:33 pm

AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Nope

So these implications then, what are you going to do about it? What is all this negativity and accusations going to achieve....... absolutely zilch. Are you saying they should stop the investigation or?? - well, what are you saying, or just moaning for moaning's sake Sorry but I can't see the point of moaning and criticising before you know the outcome.

The question wasn't directed at you, it was directed at DFM, who still hasn't answered.

As to what I'm going to do about it - nothing, because there's nothing I can do, except to continue to express my point of view

Where is the negativity in what I write? I'm giving an honest assessment of the situation as I see it. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it negative.

I'm saying that I don't believe that Grange is a genuine investigation and have have explained why I've come to that conclusion. I haven't thought about whether or not it should continue but my view on that is irrelevant. Its going to continue for as long as it serves the Home Offices purpose, whatever that is

What about my point of view is moaning for god's sake? I'm expressing a point of view and am not at all happy about being attacked for it. I thought you prided yourself on running a tolerant forum. Where's the toleration for my views?

And where have I criticised anyone for anything?

Sorry not attacking you at all, it is just that you keep saying it isn't a genuine investigation, and you give your reasons as the past corruption. You are of course entitled to that opinion but we none of us know what is going to happen. Things change, times have changed so my take is to give everyone a chance.... I personally like to be positive and wait, and then have a moan if it is not what I was expecting. We may all be shocked at the outcome anyway.

Guest Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:36 pm

AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Nope

So these implications then, what are you going to do about it? What is all this negativity and accusations going to achieve....... absolutely zilch. Are you saying they should stop the investigation or?? - well, what are you saying, or just moaning for moaning's sake Sorry but I can't see the point of moaning and criticising before you know the outcome.

The question wasn't directed at you, it was directed at DFM, who still hasn't answered.

As to what I'm going to do about it - nothing, because there's nothing I can do, except to continue to express my point of view

Where is the negativity in what I write? I'm giving an honest assessment of the situation as I see it. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it negative.

I'm saying that I don't believe that Grange is a genuine investigation and have have explained why I've come to that conclusion. I haven't thought about whether or not it should continue but my view on that is irrelevant. Its going to continue for as long as it serves the Home Offices purpose, whatever that is

What about my point of view is moaning for god's sake? I'm expressing a point of view and am not at all happy about being attacked for it. I thought you prided yourself on running a tolerant forum. Where's the toleration for my views?

And where have I criticised anyone for anything?

I did answer you at 8.57 p.m. -

You could be right, but I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about it as you are. I'm not losing sleep over it, as I said before I'll wait until PJ/SY finish their investigations. I have confidence in them and you don't, so we don't agree, so what? It's not going to change your life is it or my life?

I have nothing further to add.

Guest Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:38 pm

Walt wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Very good point,the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Oh dear, here comes the cavalry.

(Am I allowed to say that admin, if not please delete).

Walt Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:41 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Walt wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Very good point,the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Oh dear, here comes the cavalry.

(Am I allowed to say that admin, if not please delete).

Not at all,but can you state with 100% certainty that OG is a true investigation,not that you want it to be,but you know it to be.

Andrew Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:44 pm

Evening Walt. Welcome as well.

I personally think that it was impossible for GA to originally win his book appeal. At the time.

An investigation going on, then of course they will put it on hold. He knows that but he also knows he will win in the end.

Google 'win in the end' - teenwolf song. A fave of mine.

True - we'll win in the end.

AndyB Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:48 pm

candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Nope

So these implications then, what are you going to do about it? What is all this negativity and accusations going to achieve....... absolutely zilch. Are you saying they should stop the investigation or?? - well, what are you saying, or just moaning for moaning's sake Sorry but I can't see the point of moaning and criticising before you know the outcome.

The question wasn't directed at you, it was directed at DFM, who still hasn't answered.

As to what I'm going to do about it - nothing, because there's nothing I can do, except to continue to express my point of view

Where is the negativity in what I write? I'm giving an honest assessment of the situation as I see it. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it negative.

I'm saying that I don't believe that Grange is a genuine investigation and have have explained why I've come to that conclusion. I haven't thought about whether or not it should continue but my view on that is irrelevant. Its going to continue for as long as it serves the Home Offices purpose, whatever that is

What about my point of view is moaning for god's sake? I'm expressing a point of view and am not at all happy about being attacked for it. I thought you prided yourself on running a tolerant forum. Where's the toleration for my views?

And where have I criticised anyone for anything?

Sorry not attacking you at all, it is just that you keep saying it isn't a genuine investigation, and you give your reasons as the past corruption. You are of course entitled to that opinion but we none of us know what is going to happen. Things change, times have changed so my take is to give everyone a chance.... I personally like to be positive and wait, and then have a moan if it is not what I was expecting. We may all be shocked at the outcome anyway.

Apology accepted. You haven't explained what you perceived as negative or moaning but in the spirit of friendship I'll let it go. Everything you've written after the apology I could equally direct back at you: You are entitled to your opinion and I agree that none of us know what will happen, but surely that provides for my fears to be confirmed? None of us really has a clue as to what is going on so all opinions are equally valid, no? In the fullness of time I may be proved to be a cynical idiot but it is equally possible that you will be proved to be a naive fool or that both of us are ignorant morons. In my defence; at least I've given the reasons for my believing Grange to be corrupt whereas neither you nor DFM have outlined your reasoning for believing Grange to be genuine. I'm genuinely interested to read them because I'd love to be convinced that I'm wrong

Andrew Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:53 pm

Apologies but can I stick this song here.

Park it up quickly then will move it on before get some abuse.

https://youtu.be/Pi__pFWfiAY

AndyB Thu 17 Sep 2015, 9:54 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Nope

So these implications then, what are you going to do about it? What is all this negativity and accusations going to achieve....... absolutely zilch. Are you saying they should stop the investigation or?? - well, what are you saying, or just moaning for moaning's sake Sorry but I can't see the point of moaning and criticising before you know the outcome.

The question wasn't directed at you, it was directed at DFM, who still hasn't answered.

As to what I'm going to do about it - nothing, because there's nothing I can do, except to continue to express my point of view

Where is the negativity in what I write? I'm giving an honest assessment of the situation as I see it. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it negative.

I'm saying that I don't believe that Grange is a genuine investigation and have have explained why I've come to that conclusion. I haven't thought about whether or not it should continue but my view on that is irrelevant. Its going to continue for as long as it serves the Home Offices purpose, whatever that is

What about my point of view is moaning for god's sake? I'm expressing a point of view and am not at all happy about being attacked for it. I thought you prided yourself on running a tolerant forum. Where's the toleration for my views?

And where have I criticised anyone for anything?

I did answer you at 8.57 p.m. -

You could be right, but I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about it as you are. I'm not losing sleep over it, as I said before I'll wait until PJ/SY finish their investigations. I have confidence in them and you don't, so we don't agree, so what? It's not going to change your life is it or my life?

I have nothing further to add.

With the greatest respect DFM that is not an answer to the questions that I put to you. I wasn't seeking affirmation for my opinion, I wanted to clarify your reasoning that lead to your belief. Where in the blue text do you actually address either of my questions?: 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?

Walt Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:03 pm

Andrew wrote:Just to add the bbc who felt left out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34278538

No tannerman in there?

Guest Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:05 pm

AndyB wrote:
Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
And 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?

Nope

So these implications then, what are you going to do about it? What is all this negativity and accusations going to achieve....... absolutely zilch. Are you saying they should stop the investigation or?? - well, what are you saying, or just moaning for moaning's sake Sorry but I can't see the point of moaning and criticising before you know the outcome.

The question wasn't directed at you, it was directed at DFM, who still hasn't answered.

As to what I'm going to do about it - nothing, because there's nothing I can do, except to continue to express my point of view

Where is the negativity in what I write? I'm giving an honest assessment of the situation as I see it. Just because it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it negative.

I'm saying that I don't believe that Grange is a genuine investigation and have have explained why I've come to that conclusion. I haven't thought about whether or not it should continue but my view on that is irrelevant. Its going to continue for as long as it serves the Home Offices purpose, whatever that is

What about my point of view is moaning for god's sake? I'm expressing a point of view and am not at all happy about being attacked for it. I thought you prided yourself on running a tolerant forum. Where's the toleration for my views?

And where have I criticised anyone for anything?

I did answer you at 8.57 p.m. -

You could be right, but I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about it as you are. I'm not losing sleep over it, as I said before I'll wait until PJ/SY finish their investigations. I have confidence in them and you don't, so we don't agree, so what? It's not going to change your life is it or my life?

I have nothing further to add.
With the greatest respect DFM that is not an answer to the questions that I put to you. I wasn't seeking affirmation for my opinion, I wanted to clarify your reasoning that lead to your belief. Where in the blue text do you actually address either of my questions?: 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 really don't care AndyB, if you don't like my answer too bad, deal with it.

dogs don't lie Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:05 pm

I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

Mo Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:09 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

I agree DDL there is more than one police force working on this case, therefore a cover up would be difficult.

AndyB Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:14 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote: I really don't care AndyB, if you don't like my answer too bad, deal with it.

LOL. I don't need to like your answer. I just had this stupid idea that, actually, your reasoning and analysis might be better than mine and was hoping you could convince me that Grange is genuine. Honestly, I really really do want to believe that it is but I can see that my confidence in your rational ability was misplaced. Please accept my apologies

Walt Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:16 pm

Mo wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

I agree DDL there is more than one police force working on this case, therefore a cover up would be difficult.

Yes and no,we know that the PJ released the last lot of files,if its an investigation as per the remit of OG,to determine " as if the abduction occurred in the uk" and only that,then OG will not close and with OG not closing the PJ can't and no release of files again,rock and a hard place.
If Grange have spread their investigation from an abduction then why does their site still show as it did back in 2013,not exactly professional is it.

Dee Coy Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:18 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

Yep. The $64 question.

I got very down hearted last year when Joana Morais said the PJ investigation had faltered, there was no desire to find the truth. Why this may be (political? financial?) She didn't elaborate. But I lost a lot of hope then.

But then the mutterings regarding the DNA retests bubbled to the surface. Not sure whether this was Portuguese or English instigation, but it gave me new hope.

If we knew where the PJ investigation is heading, if anywhere, it would give us so many answers, not least to OG-related questions.

**Admin** Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:20 pm

Dee Coy wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

Yep. The $64 question.

I got very down hearted last year when Joana Morais said the PJ investigation had faltered, there was no desire to find the truth. Why this may be (political? financial?) She didn't elaborate. But I lost a lot of hope then.

But then the mutterings regarding the DNA retests bubbled to the surface. Not sure whether this was Portuguese or English instigation, but it gave me new hope.

If we knew where the PJ investigation is heading, if anywhere, it would give us so many answers, not least to OG-related questions.

Here you go 3 great women leading the way in the case in Portugal, it includes the bit about the curtain DNA for Mo as well..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524393/Madeleine-McCann-hunt-three-women-riddle-disapperance

Guest Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:20 pm

AndyB wrote: LOL. I don't need to like your answer. I just had this stupid idea that, actually, your reasoning and analysis might be better than mine and was hoping you could convince me that Grange is genuine. Honestly, I really really do want to believe that it is but I can see that my confidence in your rational ability was misplaced. Please accept my apologies

You're forgiven , sorry I meant AndyB.

Andrew Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:22 pm

Can we have a poll...

White or no whitewash.

No option for grey either.

Guest Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:22 pm

Andrew wrote:Can we have a poll...

White or no whitewash.

No option for grey either.

Ask AndyB.

Walt Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:24 pm

OG set their stall out with "as if the abduction occurred in the uk" can it be shown that it is any thing but this.

Dee Coy Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:27 pm

Walt wrote:
Mo wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

I agree DDL there is more than one police force working on this case, therefore a cover up would be difficult.

Yes and no,we know that the PJ released the last lot of files,if its an investigation as per the remit of OG,to determine " as if the abduction occurred in the uk" and only that,then OG will not close and with OG not closing the PJ can't and no release of files again,rock and a hard place.
If Grange have spread their investigation from an abduction then why does their site still show as it did back in 2013,not exactly professional is it.

Now that's an interesting thought, along aimilar lines to my own musings as to why OG persists. If the Portugeuese investigation must continue while OG remains open any further release of more files is halted.

Is OG a barrier to the publication of new files?

Why do you think the PJ cannot close while OG remains open, Walt? This could be an important question?

(Welcome, by the way! Smile

)

Mo Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:29 pm

Walt wrote:
Mo wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

I agree DDL there is more than one police force working on this case, therefore a cover up would be difficult.

Yes and no,we know that the PJ released the last lot of files,if its an investigation as per the remit of OG,to determine " as if the abduction occurred in the uk" and only that,then OG will not close and with OG not closing the PJ can't and no release of files again,rock and a hard place.
If Grange have spread their investigation from an abduction then why does their site still show as it did back in 2013,not exactly professional is it.

OG might have been working to determine"as if the abduction occurred in the UK" but we know the PJ weren't/aren't. OG changed their remit from a review to an investigation some time ago - it's unfortunate that their IT dept don't keep up to speed!

I posted this earlier today which is encouraging:

Snipped from Hideho Taylor

I have spoken several times to detectives on the case... There is no question in my mind...at least at their level that everything EVERYTHING was being looked at.. When I asked about the discrepacies in which door was used..he followd with the comment, thays why its a.murder squad.. I was encouraged to send my vids and also other links.... For many resons I do not believe it is a whitewash... but doesnt mean Im right or others are right...we just have to wait...

**candyfloss** Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:30 pm

I would think the PJ can close the investigation anytime and release the files, it is their investigation and they have primacy. That's my take on it.

Dee Coy Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:30 pm

Admin wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I'm more interested in how the PJ investigation is getting on, as far as Madeleine's concerned.

Yep. The $64 question.

I got very down hearted last year when Joana Morais said the PJ investigation had faltered, there was no desire to find the truth. Why this may be (political? financial?) She didn't elaborate. But I lost a lot of hope then.

But then the mutterings regarding the DNA retests bubbled to the surface. Not sure whether this was Portuguese or English instigation, but it gave me new hope.

If we knew where the PJ investigation is heading, if anywhere, it would give us so many answers, not least to OG-related questions.

Here you go 3 great women leading the way in the case in Portugal, it includes the bit about the curtain DNA for Mo as well..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524393/Madeleine-McCann-hunt-three-women-riddle-disapperance

Aye! This would certainly suggest the Portuguese are alive and very much kicking!!

Secrecy restrictions and all that, of course, can make one lose faith. Instead of keeping the faith! Wonder why Joana thought otherwise? scratch

Walt Thu 17 Sep 2015, 10:34 pm

Dee Coy wrote:

Why do you think the PJ cannot close while OG remains open, Walt? This could be an important question?

(Welcome, by the way! )

Thanks for the welcome,we know that OG have another £2 million,peanuts in the grand scheme of thing's,all they have to say is they are following leads,still on going,PJ can't close can they?

Sponsored content