CEOPS

My 'purported' THEORY about CEOP 'wanting' holiday 'snaps' is: so that they could, possibly, 'remove' any 'incriminating' photo's of the McS, T7, or 'people' they 'knew', possibly, 'REMOVING/TAKING' MM to 'somewhere', between the hours of 17h30-22h00.

'dead' or 'alive'

Hi Jeanmonroe,
Perhaps big Jim/ Clarence could elucidate us with information to any photographs of their Tapas groups evening, 03 May 2007 any CCTV images form the complex security system?

CEOP, NCA and offenders being discussed on Radio 5 Live.

If you follow the line of a massive conspiracy, as being implied by a number of people over this Wayback Machine anomaly, that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' prior to 3rd May and the CEOP under the leadership of Jim Gamble was complicit in said conspiracy, it indeed conjures up a myriad of bizarre theories about what could have happened - this is what makes it all so surreal to my way of thinking.  Apart from being so risky, for Jim Gamble to pull off such a stunt he would need at least one or more of the CEOP organization to work with him.

This whole scenario just doesn't make any sense to me.  It would seem Jim Gambles concern in the matter could only relate to a paedophile connection - for which there was, nor is, any evidence or suggestion whatsoever that Madeleine's disappearance was connected in any way shape or form to any child trafficking syndicate, at least not from a CEOP perspective.  Although I don't dismiss the possibility that Madeleine met her fate at some time prior to the night of 3rd May, I can't be convinced that it was the result of some contrived destiny.  Taking into consideration all we know and can realistically surmise from documentation relative to the case, is it really feasible that some obscure plot was going on using the Ocean Club PdL as a base?

I believe a more simple explanation as regards the CEOP.  IMO it's more likely that MBM was the victim of some illegal activity that resulted in her death.  It would appear evident that her body had to be disposed of, never to be located - this is backed up by the parents confidence and complaisance and Gerry's oft repeated claims of 'no evidence no evidence no evidence.  I can only conclude that such a course of action was necessary because her body would reveal the truth.  Gamble I think is just another one of the establishment called in to protect the McCanns - and there was no shortage in that direction.  I can quite understand the desire to emphasize the abduction by paedophile gang theory (enter Gamble and the CEOP) - to be sure to be sure to be sure!

Gamble has proved himself to be totally unprofessional since his name first appeared on the scene, can't help but think he's just another one of the establishment that knows some faces - like it's who you know not what you know.  Seems nepotism is rife within all areas of the establishment.  CEOPs prior knowledge of MBM's disappearance is a conspiracy theory to far for my liking.  Somehow though I don't think we will ever know the truth - at least not officially.

I suspect that CEOP asking for photos was not to prove Madeleine's presence at certain times/dates (thats the job of the PJ/Met), but more to identify people in the background of those pictures to establish who they are, if they are known to them and how regularly they appear on the photos to map out their behaviors/movements.

This would fit in line with the thinking that there was a known paedo in the area at the time (already known to CEOP hence their involvement/input), watching the apartments and is the main focus of both the Grange Operation for the removal of Madeleine from the apartment (deceased) and CEOPs on-going investigations into paedo rings/activity.

CEOP was a Ltd. Co. with government funding. I am not sure how this works, is it a convenient way for a government to withdraw support from such a body? i.e. if it is not set up by the government and it doesn't suit the government to keep it going they can just withdraw the funding.
I believe that is what happened as soon as Cameron came to power, Teresa May cancelled all links with CEOP.

Personally I do believe in planning but not in CEOP having the website ready on the 30th of April, it's not my area of expertise so I haven't read the arguments. I'd think that Mr. Gamble is rather too bright to do this. On reflection I also don't think the CAT files (there are in fact two according to LP: one for each of the parents iirc) are important although I used to think so. Both files may have been opened when the Leicester police got involved or may have something to do with the weird WoC issue.  I would like to know what the repercussions are for siblings  if parents voluntarity place one of their children under the guardianship of the court.
CEOP is quite interesting enough for me even without the 30th April website or the CAT files.  
I had a short conversation with Mr. G on twitter some months ago when he recommended reading Summer and Swan's book. I asked him why not the PJ files? He then blocked me after telling me he knew I'd just joined Twitter to annoy him, or words to that effect.
That was not the case. What I wanted to know is why an ex police officer would promote very much second-hand information where first-hand is so easily available.

Guest 999 wrote:I suspect that CEOP asking for photos was not to prove Madeleine's presence at certain times/dates (thats the job of the PJ/Met), but more to identify people in the background of those pictures to establish who they are, if they are known to them and how regularly they appear on the photos to map out their behaviors/movements.

This would fit in line with the thinking that there was a known paedo in the area at the time (already known to CEOP hence their involvement/input), watching the apartments and is the main focus of both the Grange Operation for the removal of Madeleine from the apartment (deceased) and CEOPs on-going investigations into paedo rings/activity.

Nice 'try' Team KATFIJO!

(Andy? Jim?)

5 day bike 'ride' to come up with 'THAT'?

just to 'add' : I wonder why CEOP, with their 'advanced' knowlegde of a 'paedo' in PDL, did NOT see fit to 'tell/warn' the T9, who had EIGHT kids, between them, and other holiday makers with; 'kids'. JW 'wouldn't be pleased' that CEOP hadn't 'informed' him of the 'paedo' they 'KNEW' was 'in the area'!

etaa: So, CEOP, the 'next, in line' for McS to 'sue'?

CEOP 'knew' there was a 'paedo' in PDL, prior, to the T9's 'arrival'?

CEOP did NOT 'warn' them.

One of T9's kids 'abducted by a paedo'.

CEOP to be 'sued'

Simples!

Guest 999 wrote:

"....and is the main focus of both the Grange Operation for the removal of Madeleine from the apartment (deceased) and CEOPs on-going investigations into paedo rings/activity."
--------------------------------

So, OG and CEOP, BOTH, 'investigating' (main focus) a 'murder' (deceased)?

So, NOT 'investigation' into 'abduction', but 'investigating' a 'murder'!

Thanks, for 'sharing' that, Team Mc.

Slowlee, slowlee, catchee monkey!

Guest 999 wrote:I suspect that CEOP asking for photos was not to prove Madeleine's presence at certain times/dates (thats the job of the PJ/Met), but more to identify people in the background of those pictures to establish who they are, if they are known to them and how regularly they appear on the photos to map out their behaviors/movements.

This would fit in line with the thinking that there was a known paedo in the area at the time (already known to CEOP hence their involvement/input), watching the apartments and is the main focus of both the Grange Operation for the removal of Madeleine from the apartment (deceased) and CEOPs on-going investigations into paedo rings/activity.

There were people in PdL in May 2007 known to CEOP all right, doubt CEOP would need photos to identify these people.

I cannot see Gerry and Kate contacting Carter Ruck pursuing a a case against CEOP and their friend big Jim against known child abuse suspects!
Big Jim should be concerned about the bereaved relatives pursuing actions against CEOP of the possible innocence of men who committed suicide after having their names released to the public, "Operation Ore", specialist protection offered to MP's and Elite members of society were to be excluded, Dunblane massacre!? 
The Daily Telegraph keep saying,show us the evidence against these person's who have been named by the press? 

All you can say on that subject is ask the Police of the Evidence they had confiscated and the complete involvement of former Police officers involved in not apprehending suspects involved in murder? 
Ask MI 5/6 to produce the evidence they obtained illegally from newspaper reporters if they are All innocent, they would do this to clear their names, oh forgot most of them are dead so they cannot pursue them?
Now the Broadsheets are reporting against their friends being vilified by the press, did not see them asking why Mrs Brenda Leyland was hounded by the MSM for asking questions of the parents of a lost child(Abducted according to the parents) who had been the last people to see her alive, prior to her going missing!
I did not know sole Traders report a massive sale of white paint by the public, they must be encouraged to keep up the appearance of the property to show it is well maintained and returns made if the property is sold?
38 Belgravia Police officers seen in white suits, Sir Bernard what is going on," looking for evidence Operation Grange", bog off we got £600 Million pounds for this place, thought we spruce it up for the new owners.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Guest 999 wrote:I suspect that CEOP asking for photos was not to prove Madeleine's presence at certain times/dates (thats the job of the PJ/Met), but more to identify people in the background of those pictures to establish who they are, if they are known to them and how regularly they appear on the photos to map out their behaviors/movements.

This would fit in line with the thinking that there was a known paedo in the area at the time (already known to CEOP hence their involvement/input), watching the apartments and is the main focus of both the Grange Operation for the removal of Madeleine from the apartment (deceased) and CEOPs on-going investigations into paedo rings/activity.

There were people in PdL in May 2007 known to CEOP all right, doubt CEOP would need photos to identify these people.

Just throwing this in: Operation Ore was when? It was a US trawl of internet users and threw up hundreds of addresses in the UK.

Blair put a D-notice on it iirc. I understand Jim Gamble moved on from Operation Ore to having his own baby in the form of CEOP. Surely he'd have a fair bit of information available from Operation Ore?

ALWAYS 'worth' another 'read'!

By Dr Martin Roberts
25 May 2014

TAKING A GAMBLE

Nowadays, for the McCanns and their public champions, appearances before the camera or on radio are fraught with more risks than ever before. Former head of CEOP, Jim Gamble, illustrates the point only too clearly. Interviewed recently for the Belfast Telegraph (19 May) he concludes with:

"I think Gerry and Kate McCann will get closure in my lifetime. My heart goes out to them. I never cease to be appalled by some of the things people say.

"A woman on the radio earlier was more fixated that Kate and Gerry left the kids and went for a meal.

"You know what? Lots of people make mistakes. Few people pay this price. Sometimes people should just think before they speak.

It must surely be a comfort to know that 'closure' for the McCanns will come within a lifetime. Can we afford to sustain Operation Grange for quite that long? But you're right Jim. People really should think before they speak. The world would be a happier place if we all did so, including your good self if I may make so bold.

That 'woman on the radio earlier' was followed by none other than our Jim, interviewed on the same programme no less (The JVS Show phone-in on BBC Three Counties Radio, 15 May). But before we take a closer look at the thoughts of career copper 'Cap'n Jim', let's just adjust the starting blocks with another of his explanations to the Belfast Telegraph:

Q. "You invested a lot in CEOP, you built it up but then you walk away in 2010. Do you regret it?

A. "I came to the point it was a matter of principle. For me it was the right thing. My fear was that it would be subsumed into a larger organisation. The Home Secretary said it would retain its identity, its profile and they would build on the success it had. Well, arrests have dropped in the last three years, the sign outside CEOP no longer says CEOP. It says National Crime Agency. Its profile has dropped. In NCA the C stands for crime. In CEOP the C always stood for children".

Never mind the beguiling Home Secretary and Gamble's paternal concern for children, the answer to the question is writ large in sentences 1 – 3. 'Subsumed into a larger organization' would mean, inevitably, that he would no longer be 'top banana', and since 'wherever egos Jim goes', Jim went.

The sheer arrogance of Jim Gamble is reflected in his conspicuous lack of professionalism toward fellow police officers and sardonic ungraciousness toward others. He and Gerry McCann no doubt got on very well together. After listening to what 'that woman on the radio' said earlier, Gamble expresses his considered opinion with respect to the proposed excavation of Praia da Luz requested by the Metropolitan Police:

"'Why now?' that's a question perhaps for the Portuguese police. These issues are being addressed because they weren't done at the time. The... the British authorities and the Metropolitan Police, who have brought a real professional focus to bear on this..."

Implying, of course, that the Portuguese police brought something other than 'a real professional focus' to bear. Gamble's insinuation is not only tactless, it is unwarranted, disrespectful and quite disgraceful. But no more so than his comment upon 'that woman's' (Sarah's) earlier point of view:

"I think it's misplaced and she's given us a lot of her opinions, so let me just give you my opinion of her call.

"I think it's spiteful, I think it's small-minded, I think she's a condescending individual that needs to reflect on the hurt that parents feel - not the issues in the margins". He later adds:

"So, I think she needs... she really needs to look in the mirror, and if I was her this morning, after listening to my interview be broadcast, I wouldn't want to look in the mirror, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to meet ordinary mums and dads in the street after what she just said, whether it's in Praia da Luz or where she lives".

Well, Jim, we are each of us entitled to hold an opinion about things, but is a concentrated character-assassination really worthy of a former Police supremo with residual ambitions? I think not. The true worth of Jim Gamble's advocacy of the McCanns soon emerges, as he continues:

"but the fact that a child was, you know, has... was... did go missing... is still missing, and that those parents are tortured..."

Let's get one thing out of the way shall we? The parents have been 'tortured', as Gamble puts it, for seven years. Their daughter Madeleine is dead for eternity.

Now, what was it he twice had to duck out of saying? 'has been abducted', 'was abducted' perhaps? What makes him so uncertain? Let's allow 'big Jim' to tell us himself:

"These are the parents of a child who is suspected to have been abducted".

(The boot's on back-to-front here isn't it? 'She was the child of parents who were suspected of hiding her body').

"The initial inquiry had led, you know, to... to no... no one being arrested, no one being held to account for this".

(Standing a bit too near the edge again here are we? The initial inquiry had led, you know, to... to the McCanns. That’s in the evidence the 'professionals' engaged in Operation Grange will have reviewed)

"I mean, this is about searching for a child who may well have been abducted and who may well have suffered, you know, harm including murder. And I really don't like to speculate about what may, or may not have happened, but had the investigation covered all these bases in the beginning we wouldn't be here now".

Ah Jim... Jim... No sooner do you attempt to feed the world bullshit than you give yourself the impossible task of polishing a turd.

"I mean, this is about searching for a child who may well have been abducted"

The child may have been abducted. On the other hand she may not. Small wonder then that Gamble declines to 'speculate about what may or may not have happened'.

You see, as Jim Gamble so eloquently explains, this is all about a child who may have been abducted OR...

Our Jim, for glaringly obvious reasons, refrains from articulating the alternative. The same alternative that was expressly 'shut out' from the (published) remit for Operation Grange. But since he has introduced the element of doubt, there can be nothing illegitimate about our clarifying the situation on his behalf.

Madeleine McCann may have been abducted, or something else must have happened to cause her disappearance. Now what could that be? There's no way she could have left the family's apartment on her own (we've been told that often enough) and yet she has not been seen in her parents' company, or anyone else's for that matter, for seven years. Someone must have taken her from 5A. But that's abduction isn't it? And she may not have been abducted (the admissible alternative to Jim Gamble's 'may well have been').

Notwithstanding his understandable reluctance to speculate, Jim Gamble nevertheless gives us, in the same breath:

"...but had the investigation covered all these bases in the beginning we wouldn't be here now".

All what bases? The ones pertaining to the search for a child who 'may have been abducted'. Which makes the question of abduction itself a base to be covered, then as now.

So you're thinking of pruning a tree in your garden which happens to overhang the fence with your neighbour (who is entitled to engage in deforestation on his own account), and considering which side of the fence to work on yourself. No contest. Especially when you weigh up the number of branches involved. No one makes unnecessary work for themselves do they? No. So the first base either the Portuguese or the Met Police should have covered, Jim, is whether Madeleine McCann was abducted or not – not who might have abducted her in the event that she 'may have been'.

Well the seemingly less professional Portuguese acted sensibly. The Met, on the other hand, are lumbered with pruning all those extra branches. Which means, Jim, that you, the McCanns, and the rest of us, will probably have to wait a lifetime after all for the 'closure' to which you refer, unless or until someone in authority decides to lift the taboo on the blindingly obvious, and permit examination of the forbidden alternative, the existence of which you yourself have admitted.

Care to take a gamble on how long that might take, Jim? It would make a change from taking the Michael for the past seven years.
--------------------------------------------------
The true worth of Jim Gamble's advocacy of the McCanns soon emerges, as he continues:

JG: "but the fact that a child was, you know, has... was... did go missing... is still missing, and that those parents are tortured..."

JG: "These are the parents of a child who is SUSPECTED to have been abducted".

JG: "I mean, this is about searching for a child who may well have been abducted and who may well have suffered, you know, harm including murder. And I really don't like to speculate about what may, or may not have happened"

JG: "I mean, this is about searching for a child who MAY well have been abducted"

MAY, or may NOT, have 'happened', Mr Gamble?

Madeleine 'WAS ABDUCTED' wasn't she, Mr Gamble?

That's what her parents said, and continue to SAY!

And that is what a full time 'investigation', by 38 full time, solely dedicated, police officers and staff, for over 4 years, at a cost, to the UK Taxpayer of £13+ million, ongoing daily, at a cost, to the UK Taxpayer, of £6,778 a DAY, IS 'solely BASED' on.

ONLY the 'parents' SAY SO!
----------------------------
JG: "and who may well have suffered, you know, harm including murder"

'HARM' including 'MURDER', Jim?

Oh dear, you can look forward to a 'writ', for 'something', from the McCann's for saying 'that' which will, obviously 'harm' the 'search', for a 'live' Madeleine, and people who 'believe' you, WILL NOT 'SEARCH'!

GROW A PAIR, GAMBLE and..........

Just SAY 'Madeleine McCann WAS abducted'...................PUBLICLY!

@Guest 999.

ARE OG/CEOP, iyv, 'investigating', 'THE abduction' (OG 'remit') of Madeleine McCann, or 'the murder' (deceased) NOT OG 'remit', of Madeleine McCann?

Operation Grange, an/THE 'abduction' of Madeleine investigation, OR, a/THE(?) 'murder', of Madeleine, investigation?

tigger wrote:CEOP was a Ltd. Co. with government funding. I am not sure how this works, is it a convenient way for a government to withdraw support from such a body? i.e. if it is not set up by the government and it doesn't suit the government to keep it going they can just withdraw the funding.
I believe that is what happened as soon as Cameron came to power, Teresa May cancelled all links with CEOP.

Personally I do believe in planning but not in CEOP having the website ready on the 30th of April, it's not my area of expertise so I haven't read the arguments. I'd think that Mr. Gamble is rather too bright to do this. On reflection I also don't think the CAT files (there are in fact two according to LP: one for each of the parents iirc) are important although I used to think so. Both files may have been opened when the Leicester police got involved or may have something to do with the weird WoC issue.  I would like to know what the repercussions are for siblings  if parents voluntarity place one of their children under the guardianship of the court.
CEOP is quite interesting enough for me even without the 30th April website or the CAT files.  
I had a short conversation with Mr. G on twitter some months ago when he recommended reading Summer and Swan's book. I asked him why not the PJ files? He then blocked me after telling me he knew I'd just joined Twitter to annoy him, or words to that effect.
That was not the case. What I wanted to know is why an ex police officer would promote very much second-hand information where first-hand is so easily available.

So there you have it - totally unprofessional.  IMO in his position he shouldn't even be discussing the case on twitter or any other social media platform, let alone hitching himself to the McCann wagon.  Speaks volumes.

"@Guest 999.

ARE OG/CEOP, iyv, 'investigating', 'THE abduction' (OG 'remit') of Madeleine McCann, or 'the murder' (deceased) NOT OG 'remit', of Madeleine McCann?

Operation Grange, an/THE 'abduction' of Madeleine investigation, OR, a/THE(?) 'murder', of Madeleine, investigation?"


................................................................................................................................................

I think a lot of over analysis has been done about the individual words written in the remit and many/any other published bit of info..."abduction"  "disappearance" etc etc and people run away with it.


Bottom line is this....no-one on here (including me) knows exactly what or who is being definitively investigated (although not the McCanns), as OG and other authorities do not publish everything they are doing.


Thinking logically though...


CEOP: Why would CEOP be involved just because a child has 'disappeared'(i use that word as no body so not officially dead, or no confession, so, the same)??? Obvious answer is...because they are aware of activity in the area, or known people operating in the area and thus can offer intelligence and assistance to the relevant police authorities running the case.


OG: Have no body, no suspect in custody and not enough evidence to categorically prove that she was murdered or by whom, therefore cannot publicly state that is is a murder investigation. Are they investigating this as a murder though? most likely yes, based on the intelligence/info they have received to date, the scene of the crime, the dogs, the limited forensics etc, hence why they were performing digs etc.


The parents however, need to keep up the pretense of an 'abduction' for as long as possible/forever, so it can be seem as an opportunistic snatching in a minute window of opportunity and not the reality which was that they neglected their children for hours upon end which led to unspeakable events taking place and ultimately led to their daughters demise. If a body is found or the murderer/abuser speaks out, too many questions will be asked/stories debunked (from the parents and tapas 7) and ultimately put them in the frame for some serious criminal charges.

I wonder what evidence there is that made OG/SY state the McCann's are not suspects in this crime, because i really can't think what evidence they could possibly have to make it so??

He saw how 'well' the bewk madeleine 'was' and he, JG, MB, and S&S 'thought' erm, 'maddie's still a 'winner'!

The S&S 'blockbuster' bewk was to be ALL their 'pension' pots! (with a % for unohoo)

Marty never got 'enuff' from the bewk 'sales' to even buy a new 'dirty' mac!

and that's AFTER the 'collective' (THEY) 'pushed/plugged' the bewk on Sky News a SECOND 'time', four or five months , later!

'disguised' as an 'update'

THAT went 'well' then!

As PM stated, WTF was Gamble and CEOP 'doing', getting 'involved' with a 'missing person' case, when THOUSANDS of girls were being EXPLOITED, ABUSED, RAPED, DRUGGED in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Derby etc., in 2007!

UNDER HIS 'WATCH', when Gamble was the CEO of CEOP.

E in CEOP stands for EXPLOITATION.

THOUSANDS of girls, in UK, being EXPLOITED in 2007.

What does Gamble 'do'?

Get to Portugal, as quick as he can, because the parents, and only the parents, the very last 'people' to have seen the child 'alive', of a 'missing' child, 'said' that 'she was abducted' (by paedo/s)



'

Verdi wrote:

tigger wrote:CEOP was a Ltd. Co. with government funding. I am not sure how this works, is it a convenient way for a government to withdraw support from such a body? i.e. if it is not set up by the government and it doesn't suit the government to keep it going they can just withdraw the funding.
I believe that is what happened as soon as Cameron came to power, Teresa May cancelled all links with CEOP.

Personally I do believe in planning but not in CEOP having the website ready on the 30th of April, it's not my area of expertise so I haven't read the arguments. I'd think that Mr. Gamble is rather too bright to do this. On reflection I also don't think the CAT files (there are in fact two according to LP: one for each of the parents iirc) are important although I used to think so. Both files may have been opened when the Leicester police got involved or may have something to do with the weird WoC issue.  I would like to know what the repercussions are for siblings  if parents voluntarity place one of their children under the guardianship of the court.
CEOP is quite interesting enough for me even without the 30th April website or the CAT files.  
I had a short conversation with Mr. G on twitter some months ago when he recommended reading Summer and Swan's book. I asked him why not the PJ files? He then blocked me after telling me he knew I'd just joined Twitter to annoy him, or words to that effect.
That was not the case. What I wanted to know is why an ex police officer would promote very much second-hand information where first-hand is so easily available.

So there you have it - totally unprofessional.  IMO in his position he shouldn't even be discussing the case on twitter or any other social media platform, let alone hitching himself to the McCann wagon.  Speaks volumes.

ITA, that it does speak volumes about his relationship to the McC's.

Guest999:

CEOP: Obvious answer is..."because they are aware of activity in the area, or known people operating in the area and thus can offer intelligence and assistance to the relevant police authorities running the case."
-----------------------------------------

You 'know' that CEOP NEVER 'passed' A SINGLE holiday 'photo', to the relevant police authority, Portuguese, from holidaymakers they 'asked' to send 'photo's' to at CEOP, don't you?

If that's 'helpful', i wouldn't like CEOP, when they are being, erm, 'unhelpful'!

You 'know' the UK HO and LP 'witheld' information from the PJ, don't you?