Re: Gerry McCann promotes exciting new missing child smart phone app

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:29

Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:31

And they'd definitely have heard shutters being raised.

----

How come burglars sometimes manage to burgle houses at night when people are asleep?

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:31

j.rob wrote:
aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?

I mean those that come onto the forum and ask loaded questions whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not you j.rob.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:32

j.rob wrote:
plebgate wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?
Don't know for sure, but if they had been in the house and settled down the door would have been locked?

Someone could have jemmied the shutters, I suppose?!

The could have pretended that they forgot to lock the door. Or even that they felt that resort was 'so safe' that it was fine to leave a window open, or a door unlocked.

Yes they could have, but who doesn't check doors before settling down/sleeping and if the window had been left open then presumably lichen would have been disturbed?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:33

j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.

That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:34

aquila wrote:
j.rob wrote:
aquila wrote:Panto time on the forum again.

What do you mean, aquila?
I mean those that come onto the forum and ask loaded questions whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not you j.rob.

Who is it then? Do share. Can't be doing with cryptic messages.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:35

Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.
That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.

What crime would that be?

by j.rob 09.11.14 14:35

Yes they could have, but who doesn't check doors before settling down/sleeping and if the window had been left open then presumably lichen would have been disturbed?

---------

The same type of people that think it is perfectly fine to leave three children alone in an apartment on holiday every evening without a babysitter, perhaps? And windows don't always have lichen on them. It's not unusual for people to leave windows open or ajar at night - especially in the summer - you see it all the time.

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:43

Yes leave windows open in the summer on a warm night. It was a very cold night in early May.

Anyway I think this is going off topic, so no more from me.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:52

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

It would have placed them at the scene of the crime.

But they were placed at the scene of the crime, by their own admission. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, so he says. And Kate was the first person to find out that Madeleine had been 'stolen'.
That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened.
What crime would that be?

The crime they were reporting at the time- abduction.

Please note that doesn't mean that I personally believe that she was abducted but that's what the McCanns were reporting.

For what it's worth in the early days I thought "woke and wandered" was the most likely explanation. The dogs findings and Kate refusing to answer questions changed my mind.

by j.rob 09.11.14 15:22

That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened

-----

Yes it does. Gerry at 9pm. Matt their friend at 9.30pm and Kate at 10pm.

Kate has written and stated that she believes that 'the abductor' might have been hiding in the room when Gerry allegedly did his 9pm 'check' so that places Gerry very firmly at the scene of a crime that is allegedly about to unfold in apartment 5A. The crime that would have begun when the 'abductor' first entered the apartment.

And their friend Matt is at the scene of the alleged crime of 'abduction' at 9.30pm. That places their friend Matt very firmly at the scene of the crime as, according to the McCanns and their friends the crime occurred between 9pm and 10pm. So Matt is there right in the middle of the alleged 'abduction'.

Such a pity Matt didn't bump into the abductor, isn't it?

Or indeed that Gerry's friend Jez Wilkins who was wandering around the resort that evening with his pram and allegedly bumped into Gerry outside apartment 5A at 9.15pm didn't spot the abductor either?

Just think, Madeleine might have been 'saved'.

Still, at least Jane Tanner allegedly saw the abductor at 9.15!! Phew!! Thank goodness for that!

But, hang on, how could Jane Tanner have spotted Madeleine's abductor at 9.15pm when neither Gerry or Jez saw him? They were both outside the apartment at 9.15pm, allegedly, so how could they have missed Tanner-man?

Hmmmm........were it not for that, Jane Tanner's sighting might have at least a shred of credibility.

But, given that it seems highly unlikely that both Jez and Gerry didn't see Tanner-man despite being in the same place at the same time as Jane Tanner, then perhaps one might get a bit suspicious........

Because if Tanner-man is out of the frame, then who is to say that 'the abductor' - or the person/s responsible for what happened to Madeleine might just be........

Those who were at the scene of the crime that night.

So that would be Gerry at 9pm. Or Matt at 9.30pm. Or Kate at 10pm.

And that's not taking into account the Smith sighting either!

prisoner

by j.rob 09.11.14 15:30

Yes leave windows open in the summer on a warm night. It was a very cold night in early May.

------

Page 70 Madeleine, Kate writes about Gerry's alleged 'check' on Madeleine at 9.05pm:

"Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers."

Given that, according to the McCann's, Madeleine was wearing relatively lightweight cotton pyjamas that night unless the apartment was heated if it was a very cold night then surely Madeleine would have been right under the covers?

Also, some people do leave windows open even when it is not that warm. I am not trying to be argumentative, by the way. But some people like a flow of fresh air! It is an undeniable fact.

by kimHager 09.11.14 17:37

I think it doesnt matter if they did or didny do thid or that...those two ( mcs) trying to save someone elses child when they didnt see the harm in leaving 3 toddlers alone while out getting pissed up is rediculous lets let the fox promote saving the hens from the henhouses! It makes me angry, why not ask soneone who actually could understand...why not ask Denise Bulger or some parent that would give thwir last breath for their missing child IMO! Not trying to go off topic

by Brian Griffin 09.11.14 17:39

plebgate wrote:That still picture of them with the pink hydrangeas in the background is getting on my nerves. Aren't they nearer 50 now than 20, so why the hand holding still? That hand holding gets on my nerves too.

Hasn't it been suggested that the hand-holding could be a way of signaling surreptitiously if one or the other (but probably Kate) starts to veer off onto a train of thought that might cause problems? Remember that 'blunder' outside the court in Portugal after Goncalo's very public switcheroo when Kate took the initiative and moaned about having to get childcare arranged in the UK? Gerry was not amused and Kate was silent at the next photo opp. leaving Gerry to do the talking. Well, if they are holding hands a little extra pressure from a finger squeeze would go unnoticed by an interviewer but would send a warning message to the other person. I've noticed how Gerry seems to be getting less tolerant of Kate's input when the cameras are on them. In one recent interview, Gerry starts his long-winded spiel of obfuscation and when Kate chimes in, he almost tuts he's so obviously irritated by it.

If I remember correctly, Gerry was sitting behind Kate with his hand on her shoulder when the police were interviewing her in Portugal, in the early stages of the case, when he shouldn't have been in the interview room at all! One squeeze for 'yes', two for 'no', maybe? Or was it the other way round? Without that support, I wonder what Kate would have said?

In my opinion.

by Brian Griffin 09.11.14 17:54

j.rob wrote:I do find the whole 'leaving the children alone and checking every now and then' story very odd. Whether it is true or not. I mean, it would be perfectly possible (albeit very unlikely) that a stranger could pop into the apartment and steal a child even if a babysitter had been hired. The babysitter could have fallen asleep in front of the television, for instance. Burglars sometimes break into houses at night when people are asleep upstairs and steal things. So, theoretically, they could steal a sleeping baby or child from a room while the parents were asleep in another room. Some children are very deep sleepers and wouldn't wake up necessarily if someone picked them up while asleep.

So why was it so important for the Mcs and their friends to promote their 'baby listening' arrangements? I have never really understood this? Why not just pretend that they woke up in the morning, or even in the night, and found Madeleine 'gone'? That way they would have avoided all the negative comments about neglect?

If they were checking as they say they were, their evenings would be interrupted by a constant coming and going of parents to and from the apartments. I doubt, the more the crowd got bevvied up, they would be as assiduous in their patrols, if they did them at all! Just my opinion, of course, but if they had been checking as much as they had, then why the need to get rid of the Tapas staff (some of the very people who went out in their own time to search while the Mcs did nothing) and have them sworn to secrecy? What do they know that threatens the McCanns? In my opinion.

by kimHager 09.11.14 18:11

I think they had a nanny and that nanny (CB) knows something of what happened or at least some pieces of this puzzle we are missing. The nanny is the one closest when they were in creche and Madeleine would have said something if she felt scared or threatened perhaps.Maybe it was negligence on MW staff's part and they possibly pacted with TM for silence and safety...both parties benifitting IMO. The staff should have called the PJ the minute complaints came in on the .childreb left alone and they didnt so....there must have been a staff member there. J MO

by kimHager 09.11.14 18:12

Makes me wonder who is protecting who

by Guest 09.11.14 20:11

There is no sign and not an ounce of proof that they checked on their children the previous days of the week

So what made them change their [strike]stories[/strike] behavioural pattern on the night Maddie was reported missing?

The fact that she went missing; just that single fact? With hindsight?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 20:11

j.rob wrote:That still doesn't place them at the scene of the crime at the time that it (allegedly)happened

-----

Yes it does. Gerry at 9pm. Matt their friend at 9.30pm and Kate at 10pm.

Kate has written and stated that she believes that 'the abductor' might have been hiding in the room when Gerry allegedly did his 9pm 'check' so that places Gerry very firmly at the scene of a crime that is allegedly about to unfold in apartment 5A. The crime that would have begun when the 'abductor' first entered the apartment.

And their friend Matt is at the scene of the alleged crime of 'abduction' at 9.30pm. That places their friend Matt very firmly at the scene of the crime as, according to the McCanns and their friends the crime occurred between 9pm and 10pm. So Matt is there right in the middle of the alleged 'abduction'.

Such a pity Matt didn't bump into the abductor, isn't it?

Or indeed that Gerry's friend Jez Wilkins who was wandering around the resort that evening with his pram and allegedly bumped into Gerry outside apartment 5A at 9.15pm didn't spot the abductor either?

Just think, Madeleine might have been 'saved'.

Still, at least Jane Tanner allegedly saw the abductor at 9.15!! Phew!! Thank goodness for that!

But, hang on, how could Jane Tanner have spotted Madeleine's abductor at 9.15pm when neither Gerry or Jez saw him? They were both outside the apartment at 9.15pm, allegedly, so how could they have missed Tanner-man?

Hmmmm........were it not for that, Jane Tanner's sighting might have at least a shred of credibility.

But, given that it seems highly unlikely that both Jez and Gerry didn't see Tanner-man despite being in the same place at the same time as Jane Tanner, then perhaps one might get a bit suspicious........

Because if Tanner-man is out of the frame, then who is to say that 'the abductor' - or the person/s responsible for what happened to Madeleine might just be........

Those who were at the scene of the crime that night.

So that would be Gerry at 9pm. Or Matt at 9.30pm. Or Kate at 10pm.

And that's not taking into account the Smith sighting either!

Surely you can see the difference between them definitely being placed at the scene of the crime for several hours, and them going to and from the scene of the crime but not being there all of the time. Dunno, seems obvious to me.

The Tanner sighting is a different issue. I've mentioned before that I'd pondered whether she may have actually been checking via her patio door and turned off down the alleyway before reaching Gerry and Jez. (But had to stick to the first version, like Gerry, of checks being made through the locked back doors).The fact that Stephen Carpenter and his daughter and their clothing are a very close fit to what she claims she saw, makes me think she did see somebody ie. them. I did doubt her sighting for a long time before seeing the pics of SC and his daughters pyjamas.

by ultimaThule 09.11.14 22:17

Stillthinking wrote:
< snip >

The Tanner sighting is a different issue. I've mentioned before that I'd pondered whether she may have actually been checking via her front door and turned off down the alleyway before reaching Gerry and Jez. (But had to stick to the first version, like Gerry, of checks being made through the locked back doors).The fact that Stephen Carpenter and his daughter and their clothing are a very close fit to what she claims she saw, makes me think she did see somebody ie. them. I did doubt her sighting for a long time before seeing the pics of SC and his daughters pyjamas.

Fwiw, it's my understanding that the 'front doors' of the apartment block are those which are entered via the block's car park and should not be confused with the sliding patio doors at the rear of the apartments which overlook MW's swimming pool complex. Although the patio, or 'back', doors of the ground floor apartments can be accessed via the alleyway which runs between the apartment block and the high wall surrounding the complex, these doors can only be locked from the inside and cannot be unlocked from outside.

Are you suggesting that Tanner, who claims to have walked past G & J at c9.15pm, confused the man she allegedly saw crossing the road ahead of her carrying a ~~bundle~~ small child lying across his arms with Stephen Carpenter who left the Tapas Bar in the company of his wife and two small children some time after she had completed her check and returned to the group's table, Stillthinking?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 22:40

ultimaThule wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
< snip >

The Tanner sighting is a different issue. I've mentioned before that I'd pondered whether she may have actually been checking via her front door and turned off down the alleyway before reaching Gerry and Jez. (But had to stick to the first version, like Gerry, of checks being made through the locked back doors).The fact that Stephen Carpenter and his daughter and their clothing are a very close fit to what she claims she saw, makes me think she did see somebody ie. them. I did doubt her sighting for a long time before seeing the pics of SC and his daughters pyjamas.

Fwiw, it's my understanding that the 'front doors' of the apartment block are those which are entered via the block's car park and should not be confused with the sliding patio doors at the rear of the apartments which overlook MW's swimming pool complex. Although the patio, or 'back', doors of the ground floor apartments can be accessed via the alleyway which runs between the apartment block and the high wall surrounding the complex, these doors can only be locked from the inside and cannot be unlocked from outside.

Are you suggesting that Tanner, who claims to have walked past G & J at c9.15pm, confused the man she allegedly saw crossing the road ahead of her carrying a ~~bundle~~ small child lying across his arms with Stephen Carpenter who left the Tapas Bar in the company of his wife and two small children some time after she had completed her check and returned to the group's table, Stillthinking?

Hi, yes via the patio door. I've corrected it now thanks. I've posted about it before, that they may all have been checking via the patio doors but agreed to say they all checked via the locked front doors instead, as Gerry did in his first statement. Then Jane could have possibly seen somebody crossing the road without G and J seeing her. SC says he left between 9.15 and 9.30, which is around the time she was doing her check. He was carrying his daughter and it seems that that's who SY think Tannerman was.

by ultimaThule 10.11.14 4:48

If we bin all of the televised 'reconstructions' which have Tanner flip-flopping in a northerly direction seemingly unseen past G & J standing outside the side gate entrance to the rear of 5A as J would have it or, as G would have it, chatting away on the other side of the road slightly south of the entrance to MW's swimming pool complex and place her coming back through the alleyway having completed her check via the unlocked? patio doors to her apartment, she may indeed have seen SC carrying one of his children walking along the road ahead of her, Stillthinking, but, if so, she would also have seen his wife with their other child and they would have seen G & J - or are you suggesting that G & J had parted company by that time?

In addition, if Tanner left the group's table at c9.15 and returned at c.9.30 from a trip which we're led to believe took 2-3 minutes max from the Tapas Bar to the front entrance of the apartments and back, she would have crossed paths with Matthew Oldfield setting out to do his alleged check on the unattended infants, including those of the McCanns' but with the exception of the Paynes' children, and he would also have seen the Carpenter family wending their way home.

I'm curious to know why you've arrived at the conclusion that SC is SY's 'Crecheman' and, with regard to your statement upthread, "The fact that Stephen Carpenter and his daughter and their clothing are a very close fit to what she claims she saw, makes me think she did see somebody ie. them. I did doubt her sighting for a long time before seeing the pics of SC and his daughters pyjamas" I would be most interested in seeing the photos you've mentioned and hope you'll post them here.

Eta this link to 'The Carpenters' thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3311-the-carpenters#73875

by j.rob 10.11.14 23:43

Surely you can see the difference between them definitely being placed at the scene of the crime for several hours, and them going to and from the scene of the crime but not being there all of the time. Dunno, seems obvious to me.

---------

lol4

Even they are not so stupid as to place themselves at the scene of the crime for a long period of time!

But, as you write, they were going 'to and from' the scene of the crime.

I suppose that is what happens when a crime is committed. Someone or several people go 'to' the scene of the crime.

Then they commit the crime.

Then someone or several people leave the scene of the crime.

In general, I would imagine that people committing a crime do not hang around for hours an hours.

------

So, who have we got in and around the scene of the crime in and around the time that the crime allegedly happened? ie: Thursday evening.

Well:

Gerry McCann allegedly supervises Madeleine and the twins tea-time at 5.30pm (ish).

Kate McCann allegedly supervises bath-time and bed-time for Madeleine and the twins from around 6pm until 7.30pm

David Payne allegedly pops his head around the patio doors of apartment 5A at around 6.30pm.

Gerry McCann allegedly arrives back to the apartment some time after his tennis session at 7pm and helps put the children to bed.

Kate and Gerry allegedly leave all children sleeping peacefully when they leave to go out to dinner at around 8.30pm (ish).

Gerry McCann allegedly checks on Madeleine and the twins at 9pm and everything is fine.

Jez Wilkins, a fellow holiday maker, allegedly bumps into Gerry McCann at 9.15pm outside apartment 5A at 9.15pm after Gerry's 'check'.

Jane Tanner allegedly sees Madeleine's 'abductor' at 9.15pm up the road from the McCann apartment, scurrying away carrying Madeleine when she is carrying out a check on her children in their own apartment.

Matt Oldfield allegedly checks on the McCann children at 9.30pm and looks in through the door and sees the twins breathing.

Kate McCann allegedly checks on the children at 10pm and 'discovers' that Madeleine has been 'abducted.'

-------

All people of 'considerable interest' I am sure. Being in and around the scene of the crime at crucial times.

And no doubt some of them - or even all of them - are some of the 'elements' - the ten or 12 people - that entered apartment 5A during that week.

And therein lies the key to solving the mystery, according to (at least) one detective.

by **tigger** 13.08.15 11:24

Going back in time - which can be useful - Here is a clip from the old days. Just around the time when they were going to introduce a new number in 2007/8.. spin

But reputation management first!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=/news/2007/12/07/wmaddy107.xml#source=refresh

Gerry Mccann Nominated For Scot Of The Year

Daily Telegraph

By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz

12:01AM GMT 07 Dec 2007

Madeleine McCann's father has been nominated for the title of Scot of the Year 2007, alongside Gordon Brown and former Scotland manger Alex McLeish.

Glasgow-born Gerry McCann was one of 12 candidates put forward by the Scotland on Sunday newspaper for an online poll.

The news came as the family issued a desperate plea for information after it emerged that police had still not traced every holidaymaker who was in Praia da Luz on the night of the toddler's disappearance.

British police have never been given a comprehensive list of all the guests in the Portuguese resort and some forces are still searching for a handful of people who could hold the key to finding the missing four-year-old.

Meanwhile one element of the investigation will fall into the hands of Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, this weekend, who has 48 hours to decide whether permission will be granted for the Portuguese police to re-interview the McCanns and their friends.

Readers of the Sunday newspaper have been given one week to vote online for the Scot who has "inspired us most through the past year".

Other suggested candidates include Gordon Brown, Scotland football coach Alex McLeish, who resigned after the team failed to qualify for Euro 2008 and John Smeaton, the baggage handler who helped foil a terrorist attack on Glasgow airport
unquote

That would be Jaqui Smith who held up the rogatories for three or four months? Where did those 48 hours go?

by **tigger** 13.08.15 11:27

- and here is this earlier exiting new number, the creation of which predates the disappearance of MBMCcann.

http://thelostmarketingploy.blogspot.nl/search?updated-min=2010-12-31T16:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2011-04-24T22:19:00%2B01:00&max-results=50&start=57&by-date=false

The truth behind the McCann's 116 000 alert number

More on Gary Titley - Labour MEP who was fighting Gerry and Kate's corner in June and July 2007.

In July last year, Gerry McCann, told the UK journalists that a pan-European database would "help prevent child abuse and track those responsible for such crimes". He also called for "greater consistency across the European Union". Like Gerry, Gary Titley is very fond of the phrase 'pan European'.

In April 2006 Socialist Group member, Titley was similarly requesting a 'pan-European' emergency call system' - the implementation of eCall from Brussels.

On other another occasion it was 'action to facilitate cross-border mergers and acquisitions in financial services' (oct 2006) And here he is again, on the issue of a Pan-European Defence system: "British Socialist MEP Gary Titley, a leading exponent of a single European arms industry, deplores the current situation, insisting: "We need to establish a (Pan) European defence company. Without one we cannot compete."

In January 2007 Titley addressed the 'Making EU Enlargement Work' conference - an invitation only event held in Central London: "What steps need to be taken to deal with cross-border issues, such as transnational organised crime and people trafficking" "Can effective pan-European strategies be formed – and does an EU of 27 need institutional or policy reforms to achieve this? "What is the key to an effective strategy to maintain sufficient public consent for enlargement in both established and new member states? If this cannot be done, could this be the last EU enlargement?"
http://www.progressive-governance.net/policies/events.aspx?id=112&evt=394

Titley was present at a meeting in Brussels in January and May 2007 to resolve the scope and the legal basis of the new Prum Treaty.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2007-0207&language=EN

Gary Titley is also a member of the Socialist Fabian Society along with folks like Blair and Brown. They appear to approach EU Enlargement with much the same passion as the average US Neocon approaches expansion in the Middle East. They wish to keep the EU door open to Turkey. Something the vatican also supports. I think the McCann's friend Titley was an early campaigner for the Pan-European 'Missing Children's Hoteline, '116-000' through his work with Missing Children Europe. Missing Children Europe partner Oracle (the software company). Titley has supported a number of cross-border surveillance projects (vehicle registration being one). Could be a lot of money in having increased surveillance technology in place. Oracle are the EU ICT Supplier of choice and Orcale have been looking to expand in Andalucia/Malaga - which is where the McCanns' first witness, Mari Olli Pollard lives with her husband (Huelva is also in this region).

In April 2008 the McCanns address the Press in Brussels on the deployment of a 'new' alert number: 116 000

Press Association April 2008

"The McCanns will carry out a presentation to MEPs about the need for greater co-ordination between European countries when a child is abducted.

Their plan includes the introduction of a new dedicated information hotline. They have already reserved the number - 116 000 - but it has yet to go live."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iejH1H9sKalQOLzjMtKWr6KEKZCQ

However the reservation of this number predates the disappearence of Madeleine by several months. The number was already reserved. Gerry and Kate had nothing to do with it. Here is a press release from the European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children dated December 2006:

"COMMUNICATION TO THE PRESS

The European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children welcomes “116 000” as the European telephone number for missing children Brussels, 20 December 2006 - The European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children welcomes today’s decision of the Extraordinary Communications Committee, reserving “116 000” as the European telephone number for missing children. The European Commission initiated this number as an example of services of social importance in itsdecision “on reserving the national number range beginning with ‘116’ for harmonised numbers for harmonised services of social value”. The European number for missing children constitutes a major step towards strengthening the assistance offered by emergency hotlines across Europe in cases of disappearances of minors."

[url=http://www.european-federation.org/uploads/documents/87-304-final press release 20_12_2006.pdf]http://www.european-federation.org/uploads/documents/87-304-final%20press%20release%2020_12_2006.pdf[/url]

And it's again mentionened by EU Labour Leader, Gary Titley in February 2007:

http://www.garytitley.com/bbd4e6e9-a486-f4a4-255a-8e1beeb0e9a8?PageId=645d873c-369d-b1c4-a97a-df7346a8a05a

Gary Titley went on to champion the McCann's cause directly as of May/June 2007.
Weird how such a massively high profile abduction case fell into their lap at exactly the right time - just as people like Gary Titley and Catherine Meyer set out to lobby MEPS for the implementation of the alert scheme throughout Europe.

Could just be a coincidence.

Log in for more topics