Re: Sir Bernard Hogan Howe says Grange is a MURDER investigation in latest interview.

by Gaggzy 08.10.14 21:08

HelenMeg wrote:Apart from anything else, is this man competent to be in the role he's in?

The man who was put in charge at the gymnasium (the temporary morgue) at Hillsborough following the disaster. The man who lied about making a statement afterwards. He claimed he made one but didn't.
He informed a family that their son had survived, but the poor kid had died.

He doesn't come across as competent to me.

His mumbling, bumbling responses in interviews appear to show this.

The M-word gets another airing.

by sammyc 08.10.14 21:13

Let's hope this interview was on the School Bus radio too and Kate has to explain to her 2 remaining children the use of the murder word.

by aiyoyo 08.10.14 21:32

Dee Coy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782066/I-love-mum-I-miss-forever-Grieving-son-s-tribute-internet-troll-dead-hotel-room-exposed-targeting-Maddie-McCann-s-parents.html

Can this be right, that 'the family' handed in the dossier? Or is mumbling Bernard-Howe simply mistaken? If it's true, it could shed some light on this mysterious comment by Gerry, snipped from the Mail article linked above:

Of course if can be right. If the press says so it must be right.

"The family" can mean sisters, in-laws, or cousins or relatives 6 degrees removed of K & G. K or G. Terming them as McCanns sympathisers makes perfect sense.
Those are the people with vested interest to support the McCanns, by extension to support the family's name.

Stranger-group unrelated to McCanns has no reason to hand the dossier to OG, rather public members as sympathisers would hand it to nearest local police station; and not OG. Only "the family" would think of giving it to OG, Redwood's contact details likely supplied by K&G, as usual. The mcCanns' ( via their extended family, so called sympathisers whatever) purpose of giving it to OG is so that they hope to divert the investigation - don't dig or search, look at the "trolls" that are victimising K & G - don't look there, look here.

"The family" might also have supplied the dossier to S & S to give to their media contacts or it might be a source close to "the family" (and who know what colour that ~~sauce~~ source is) who had handed the dossier to his press contacts.

Either way, "the family" is behind this. May not be K & G directly, but executed on their behalf, with their knowledge and consent. Else, where did Gerry not deny it (that he knew nothing about the dossier)? In fact, he came out to condemn the trolls saying more should be charged.

If not supplied by "the family", but coming from unknown public members (wishing to remain anonymous, the press is unlikely to act on it, since it would be taking a very big risk -- without knowing (1) the intention of the dossier supplier, (2) if it was compiled legitimately, (3) if it has the endorsement of McCanns to go after these alleged trolls, etc etc. if not coming from "the familY', and by extension the approval of "K & G" to act on it, the Press would not have acted or acted so swiftly if it came from a devious source wishing to remain anonymous on top of that.
The natural conclusion must be: it was supplied to the press and OG by "the family" or source close to "the family" thus by extension "the family".

by aiyoyo 08.10.14 21:34

sammyc wrote:Let's hope this interview was on the School Bus radio too and Kate has to explain to her 2 remaining children the use of the murder word.

Which court would she have to explain to, that BHH harms the search for Madeleine, by being libellous?

by Okeydokey 08.10.14 21:42

HelenMeg wrote:Apart from anything else, is this man competent to be in the role he's in?

Given in another interview from a few months ago he could remember what Operation Grange referred to I guess the answer has to be a resounding no.

by lj 08.10.14 22:14

Doubter wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782066/I-love-mum-I-miss-forever-Grieving-son-s-tribute-internet-troll-dead-hotel-room-exposed-targeting-Maddie-McCann-s-parents.html

Can this be right, that 'the family' handed in the dossier? Or is mumbling Bernard-Howe simply mistaken? If it's true, it could shed some light on this mysterious comment by Gerry, snipped from the Mail article linked above:

"Asked about '@sweepyface', Mr McCann said: 'I haven't read her tweets ... I think that is an issue, that our behaviour is modified by this".

'Our behaviour'? In what way has your behaviour had an impact on this, Gerry?

It sounds to me like he is implying that their ['our'] behaviour is affected in a way that they know there is 'nasty' tweets out there but do not read them ie. their everyday life has to be 'modified' because they cannot just go online like everyone else in case they accidentally view unsavoury comment's about them . A bit like a doctor asking you how does your condition affect your everyday being ? Problem is if you have not read them how can they affect you so badly ?

Maybe if he had read them, he would not have been affected so much. Something like "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself".
But that would have been for a normal person.

For Gerry, the narcissist, of course the tweets in itself were not important. That someone was out there, keeping the eye on the ball, continuing to tweet or post about Amy Tierney or Gaspar, or their unbelievable neglect, that did have inpact on his behavior. What someone doubting him? That has to be addressed, and the "threat" annihilated, NOW!

by Doubter 08.10.14 22:38

lj wrote:
Doubter wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782066/I-love-mum-I-miss-forever-Grieving-son-s-tribute-internet-troll-dead-hotel-room-exposed-targeting-Maddie-McCann-s-parents.html

Can this be right, that 'the family' handed in the dossier? Or is mumbling Bernard-Howe simply mistaken? If it's true, it could shed some light on this mysterious comment by Gerry, snipped from the Mail article linked above:

"Asked about '@sweepyface', Mr McCann said: 'I haven't read her tweets ... I think that is an issue, that our behaviour is modified by this".

'Our behaviour'? In what way has your behaviour had an impact on this, Gerry?

It sounds to me like he is implying that their ['our'] behaviour is affected in a way that they know there is 'nasty' tweets out there but do not read them ie. their everyday life has to be 'modified' because they cannot just go online like everyone else in case they accidentally view unsavoury comment's about them . A bit like a doctor asking you how does your condition affect your everyday being ? Problem is if you have not read them how can they affect you so badly ?
Maybe if he had read them, he would not have been affected so much. Something like "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself".
But that would have been for a normal person.

For Gerry, the narcissist, of course the tweets in itself were not important. That someone was out there, keeping the eye on the ball, continuing to tweet or post about Amy Tierney or Gaspar, or their unbelievable neglect, that did have inpact on his behavior. What someone doubting him? That has to be addressed, and the "threat" annihilated, NOW!

When he said about 'not reading the tweets' on Radio 4 he sounded like he was trying to come across as a 'politician' - you know- the ones who say in a very belligerent way 'oh I never read papers' etc [especially after some scandal about them has been exposed] . And they think we all believe them .

by jeanmonroe 08.10.14 23:47

I wonder WHEN we'll hear that MB has 'retired' to 'spend more time' with his 'family'

I mean his REAL 'family' NOT his surrogate 'family', the McCanns!

Brunt is THE STORY now, and we all know what happens when that 'occurs'.........................ask Andy 'i know nuffing, guv' Coulson!

Remind me. WHERE is 'our' Andy?

Rhetorical.

by Joss 09.10.14 5:26

I just don't see with the BS surrounding this case and all the controversy in it, that the McC's can't fathom that there are a lot of people out in the public that don't believe their contradictory versions of events. For all the public exposure they let themselves be a party to, instead of remaining private, are they really that naive to think this case would have no backlash upon them? They really can't have it both ways, and IMO they have no right to expect that the general public will just believe them on hearsay when the evidence put forth in the case speaks for itself. They should expect what has and is happening when they have only themselves to blame for all of it.

by ChippyM 09.10.14 8:55

Okeydokey wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Apart from anything else, is this man competent to be in the role he's in?

Given in another interview from a few months ago he could remember what Operation Grange referred to I guess the answer has to be a resounding no.

That was the 5 live interview from Feb. this year. I think his incompetence is useful. It serves as a focus and a scapegoat from all the corruption that seems to be around so many cases. At some point they can get rid of him and say 'lessons will be learned', then replace him...... rinse and repeat.
The trouble with employing a pliable baffoon to do your bidding is that they will probably end up making unplanned gaffs every now and again.

by Rogue-a-Tory 09.10.14 9:54

Joss wrote:I just don't see with the BS surrounding this case and all the controversy in it, that the McC's can't fathom that there are a lot of people out in the public that don't believe their contradictory versions of events. For all the public exposure they let themselves be a party to, instead of remaining private, are they really that naive to think this case would have no backlash upon them? They really can't have it both ways, and IMO they have no right to expect that the general public will just believe them on hearsay when the evidence put forth in the case speaks for itself. They should expect what has and is happening when they have only themselves to blame for all of it.

I've contemplated similar in the past but soon realised that should K&G stop pedalling they fall off the bike, the non-believers will overtake them and their world start to implode much more than it is at present.

They have to keep pedalling, but their biggest problem is that The Fund will soon run out of hard cash. Can't be too many fund raising opportunities left. Then without money where do they garner the support from? No more Mitchell, C&R or paid Shills -interesting that The Times case was fought on a 'no win, no fee' basis. On the their own with just their guardians in the darkest shadows to rely upon - will they fund them or cut them adrift when the time is right?

The Fund just might be a key to all of this.

by Guest 09.10.14 10:06

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Joss wrote:I just don't see with the BS surrounding this case and all the controversy in it, that the McC's can't fathom that there are a lot of people out in the public that don't believe their contradictory versions of events. For all the public exposure they let themselves be a party to, instead of remaining private, are they really that naive to think this case would have no backlash upon them? They really can't have it both ways, and IMO they have no right to expect that the general public will just believe them on hearsay when the evidence put forth in the case speaks for itself. They should expect what has and is happening when they have only themselves to blame for all of it.
I've contemplated similar in the past but soon realised that should K&G stop pedalling they fall off the bike, the non-believers will overtake them and their world start to implode much more than it is at present.

They have to keep pedalling, but their biggest problem is that The Fund will soon run out of hard cash. Can't be too many fund raising opportunities left. Then without money where do they garner the support from? No more Mitchell, C&R or paid Shills -interesting that The Times case was fought on a 'no win, no fee' basis. On the their own with just their guardians in the darkest shadows to rely upon - will they fund them or cut them adrift when the time is right?

The Fund just might be a key to all of this.

Which brings me back to Amaral,he is the key,get the million from him and everything would be rosy,but no he fights it and I believe and hope he wins,if he does who pays the cost's McCanns what with?

by Guest 09.10.14 10:16

Seeing as this thread is Hogan Howe related.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2784330/Judge-attacks-Met-chief-Hogan-Howe-force-s-treatment-innocent-man-framed-disgraced-Met-officer-Ali-Dizaei.html

by Rogue-a-Tory 09.10.14 10:37

WMD wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Joss wrote:I just don't see with the BS surrounding this case and all the controversy in it, that the McC's can't fathom that there are a lot of people out in the public that don't believe their contradictory versions of events. For all the public exposure they let themselves be a party to, instead of remaining private, are they really that naive to think this case would have no backlash upon them? They really can't have it both ways, and IMO they have no right to expect that the general public will just believe them on hearsay when the evidence put forth in the case speaks for itself. They should expect what has and is happening when they have only themselves to blame for all of it.
I've contemplated similar in the past but soon realised that should K&G stop pedalling they fall off the bike, the non-believers will overtake them and their world start to implode much more than it is at present.

They have to keep pedalling, but their biggest problem is that The Fund will soon run out of hard cash. Can't be too many fund raising opportunities left. Then without money where do they garner the support from? No more Mitchell, C&R or paid Shills -interesting that The Times case was fought on a 'no win, no fee' basis. On the their own with just their guardians in the darkest shadows to rely upon - will they fund them or cut them adrift when the time is right?

The Fund just might be a key to all of this.
Which brings me back to Amaral,he is the key,get the million from him and everything would be rosy,but no he fights it and I believe and hope he wins,if he does who pays the cost's McCanns what with?

Correct, the Portuguese case is make or break as too is keeping UK MSM onside as to how well this is proceeding for TM. Not as the press in Portugal agree too much with that.

by ChippyM 09.10.14 21:20

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

They have to keep pedalling, but their biggest problem is that The Fund will soon run out of hard cash. Can't be too many fund raising opportunities left. Then without money where do they garner the support from? No more Mitchell, C&R or paid Shills -interesting that The Times case was fought on a 'no win, no fee' basis. On the their own with just their guardians in the darkest shadows to rely upon - will they fund them or cut them adrift when the time is right?

The Fund just might be a key to all of this.

Good observation about the no win no fee, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe mysterious benefactors have withdrawn donations?

by roy rovers 09.10.14 22:09

Not 'disappearance' or even 'death' but 'murder'. I don't think that was a slip of the tongue other than inadvertently revealing how it's discussed behind closed doors at SY.

by AndyB 09.10.14 22:15

roy rovers wrote:Not 'disappearance' or even 'death' but 'murder'. I don't think that was a slip of the tongue other than inadvertently revealing how it's discussed behind closed doors at SY.

Yes but unfortunately they're thinking about a non-existent paedophile abductor.

by Lance De Boils 09.10.14 23:11

{Just to make myself unpopular},

I'd like to suggest the possibility that as (iirc) HH had been speaking about the Alice Gross (RIP) case, just prior to this, he could he have made a genuine slip-up, with the cases momentarily 'overlapping' in his mind. Couldn't he?

Has Hobs commented yet on this thread? smilie

[Off to check]

Log in for more topics