Faith in Op Grange

There's nothing happening over there, TB.  One post during the past 24 hours, at 4.20 pm today, and that was about Jill Dando.

aquila wrote:More bullshit baffles brains but with a 'twist'.

Yep, the twist being the £1 million spent to baffle the general public.

Tony Bennett wrote:

scrants wrote:

I think that what Roger Rabbit has to say is very interesting and is certainly a relief from the usual going round in circles that makes up 99% of what is debated on here.

@ scrants

Then don't waste your time popping over here

Well 'here' is where RogerRabbit chose to post and I found it interesting. So what?

I don't expect he will make the same mistake again.

aquila wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

scrants wrote:

I think that what Roger Rabbit has to say is very interesting and is certainly a relief from the usual going round in circles that makes up 99% of what is debated on here.

@ scrants

Then don't waste your time popping over here

It is as simple as that Tony.

The ones who object to my comments on this forum and bank each other up are all from....over there.

A foot in two camps isn't a good place to be.

Two camps? Is there a loyalty thing going on?  I thought we were both on the side of Madeleine.

scrants wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

scrants wrote:

I think that what Roger Rabbit has to say is very interesting and is certainly a relief from the usual going round in circles that makes up 99% of what is debated on here.

@ scrants

Then don't waste your time popping over here

Well 'here' is where RogerRabbit chose to post and I found it interesting. So what?

I don't expect he will make the same mistake again.

I don't follow.

99% of what takes place on this forum is 'going round in circles'?

It must be truly awful - coming here day after day after day, seeing circles going round and round and round all the time -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKV9bK-CBXo

- 7 weeks of unremitting boredom since you last posted here, yet all of a sudden Roger Rabbit's ramblings about how Operation Grange is a sincere, no-holds-barred investigation into the truth draws you in...

...fascinating!

scrants wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

scrants wrote:

I think that what Roger Rabbit has to say is very interesting and is certainly a relief from the usual going round in circles that makes up 99% of what is debated on here.

@ scrants

Then don't waste your time popping over here

Well 'here' is where RogerRabbit chose to post and I found it interesting. So what?

I don't expect he will make the same mistake again.

Roger Rabbit will post and post and post and disrupt and disrupt and disrupt. He's a member of your other forum, the forum that boasts a little area dedicated to annihilating Tony Bennett and being 'outcasts' of this forum. The other forum has little to offer other than join us and you'll be allowed to see other areas of discussion. The largest view they have to date is 56 members.

The 'other' forum has welcomed just about everyone who was booted off CMOMM and yet remarkably they have little to say....they come back onto this forum to create havoc whilst being soothed by banal comments from their admins.

This is a lesson to me.

It's about time someone stuck up for this forum.

aquila wrote:It's about time someone stuck up for this forum.

Its about time some one stuck up for Madeleine McCann.

Post deleted

String, no need for personal insults and rudeness.  Let's get back on topic, please.

It's very rare there is any such thing as a new member after 8 years of this debacle...

Reinvented members yes... and reinvented reinvented members...

Which is why some people see a new member and go "ok..."...

String, you are not disruptive, but please bear in mind that the McCann crew are watching the members here like hawks. The mods are terrified of exposure given what has happened even in the last year. People who get outed in criticism of the McCann official line usually come off worse.

If RogerRabbit is still a member I would like to reply to his comment to me which I have only just seen. You asked:

"If their actions end up resulting in charges brought against the people who you seem to hope would be charged, would you switch your support in the name of utterly transparent, publicly accountable police investigations?

Or would you regard their deceit and underhandedness as a necessary and cunning tool in catching criminals?

Do you fundamentally oppose undercover police investigation and infiltration techniques? Do you oppose honeytrap intelligence gathering, bait and switch, catch and release, good cop bad cop, and all the other tried , tested and universally employed (pragmatically, of course) tactics?

Are you universally opposed, or do the ends justify the means?"

My answer is if SY behaved in this manner the charges against anyone would fall at the first fence.

They would not, as far as I know, prosecute this case.

And finally I actually don't believe Gerry and Kate are in any way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. I bet that comes as a shock, but it's my opinion.

Hi Angelique.  I was interested in your last paragraph so read some of your posts where in one (28th May 2014) you state that, in your opinion, there was no neglect and it was the babysitter who was responsible. Responsible for MBM's death?  On 29th July 2014 you posted that you believed that the Mcs were involved with dealing with the aftermath.

What do you believe happened to MBM?

Angelique wrote:
And finally I actually don't believe Gerry and Kate are in any way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. I bet that comes as a shock, but it's my opinion.

do we therefore assume that you do not believe they left the children alone in an unlocked apartment
do we therefore assume that you believe that they have all LIED repeatedly throughout the last 8 years

If so, then you may find many people who believe as you do.

But that would relate only to the death of Madeleine, not to the subsequent disposal of the body.
If you posit a death at the hands of, or in the presence of a babysitter, you are still left with the concealment of the death and the disposal of the cadaver.

For the parents not to be responsible in any way must exclude them from involvement in that, or indeed in knowledge of what occurred.
I would be fascinated to hear your wider view

XTC on Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:42 pm
.
I won't repeat what has been said in past posts but which part of " As if THE abduction happened in the UK " do we not understand?

It's not a pompous question I hope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't 'understand'!

"THE abduction'?

What 'abduction'?

"THE" = DEFINITE (article)

Was there a definite 'abduction' proven beyond contestation,?

WHO has 'proved' Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted' by anyone?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) stated, in writing, that Madeleine McCann is classed as a 'missing' person, as they have no PROOF Madeleine McCann is an 'abducted' person.

OG, in their last 'update' only referred to 'missing' Madeleine McCann's case, as a 'disappearance' NOT 'an abduction'

(istbc)

The 'remit' SHOULD have been 'worded', imo, as 'if AN/A 'abduction' happened in the UK"

NOT "THE abduction"

Is there any DEFINITIVE proof, anywhere, that Madeleine McCann 'was DEFINITELY abducted', beyond her own parents 'say so', provided by OG or anyone else?

I have NEVER heard ex DCI Redwood, in charge of OG for 3 1/2 YEARS, refer to Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance' as a case of 'abduction' let alone 'THE abduction'

Again istbc.

He (DCI AR) said officers "had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act."

"COULD of", not "DID".

Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".

NOTICE, the use of the word, 'disappearance', NOT 'abduction', let alone 'THE abduction', as per 'OG 'remit' by ex DCI A Redwood.

He (DCI AR) 'believed'

Did the 37 other police/staff at OG, 'share' his 'belief', unquestionally, or did they have OTHER 'explanations' about 'possibilities' surrounding Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance'

Has ex DCI Redwood ever 'provided' irrefutable 'evidence' that Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance' WAS 'a criminal act by a stranger'?

As he , solely?, 'believes'?

And that is what i don't 'understand'

The words 'as if THE abduction........', in OG 'remit'

Show me PROOF that Madeleine McCann 'WAS definitely abducted' by anyone, let alone a 'stranger'

and i'll gladly believe, 'THE abduction' of Madeleine McCann.

'PROOF', of ' THE abduction' PLEASE.

What i do 'understand', is that, both, R O'B AND DP 'cast DOUBT' on the McCann's 'claim' of 'abduction' of their daughter!

As Sir Humphrey famously said: "... never start an enquiry unless you know what its findings will be.”

Setting a remit that steers an enquiry exactly where you need it to go is nothing new. It's very effective and it provides wide-eyed deniability for all those involved if ever it emerges that the answer lay outside the bounds of the enquiry.

Very well put, BB.

comperedna wrote:Very well put, BB.

I'll second that. It sums things up perfectly for me. Well said Bishop Brennan.

Off topic - Post deleted

The thread isn't locked on my machine.  Anyone can write in.

"I personally didnt /dont view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level,all in My Opinion of course."

Just shows, in the last few words of the above, how very different opinions on here can be.  I found Mr Rabbit's postings to be opaque and rather confused... ah well. I guess everyone is entitled to post if their contributions are not libellous or otherwise disobeying of the admin rules.