Gerald McCann: CATS system - registration number 19309

Advocatus wrote:
That simple check could take their investigations in an entirely different direction if gerry's file was created before 3 may 07.



I'm on a train getting jostled a bit, so hard to research, but it would be a good excersise surely for the MF to submit 2 FOI requests

For 19308 and 19310

See what dates of creation/filing, if any, are discovered?


It is alleged at quality wristbands that child abuses were recorded on 19309 on 2002

Where was GM working/studying back then

Stewie wrote:

jd wrote:Ive read somewhere a few times that this file was created in 2002

there is more info and links here:

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-jim-gamble-sanitize-gerry-mccanns.html

The registration number itself could provide a clue for anyone with access to the system. If the numbers are assigned automatically then the created date of the files with registration numbers either side of gerry's one would give you an approximate creation date for gerry's file. If SY had the will I'm sure they would be authorised to have access to the system...

That simple check could take their investigations in an entirely different direction if gerry's file was created before 3 may 07.

jd wrote:Food for thought......

http://www.medindia.net/news/Australian-Police-Expose-Paedophile-Parents-Network-78867-1.htm

Pershing36 wrote:

jd wrote:Food for thought......

http://www.medindia.net/news/Australian-Police-Expose-Paedophile-Parents-Network-78867-1.htm

I see that person Sines has commented on this article copying a pasting the background check. Does Sines have more information than us? He mentioned the word 'Argus', other than the newspaper and a German company that made parts for the V1 bomb I have no idea what he/she is referring too.

jd wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:

jd wrote:Food for thought......

http://www.medindia.net/news/Australian-Police-Expose-Paedophile-Parents-Network-78867-1.htm

I see that person Sines has commented on this article copying a pasting the background check. Does Sines have more information than us? He mentioned the word 'Argus', other than the newspaper and a German company that made parts for the V1 bomb I have no idea what he/she is referring too.

I read this too. I think that Sines meant 'Argos' and misspelt it to Argus. This operation was called Task Force Argos

sharonl wrote:This may be of very little relevance at the moment but we should keep it for possible future reference

http://www.amsosa.com/ore.htm

Mastercard and American Express customers, plus other major credit card providers, have projected that the total number of British people accessing child porn sites exceeds 250,000.

Paying to view child pornography on the Net carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. Why are the sentences so short? Viewing child pornography is not a victimless crime!

Maybe, sometimes it just pays to have your wallet pinched

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

Uh-huh. I think somebody googled the wrong keyword, pressed the wrong button and then accidentally-on-purpose put in their card details before realising it was the 'wrong' site - I don't think so! Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy. I wasn't born yesterday nor am I as dim as I sometimes sound

russiandoll wrote:Rainbow Fairy I need to do some more research on this. [ I don't think you ever sound dim btw far from it!]

I have only read about this visit to Rothley from unreliable sources [the McCanns ] and as you say it will be near impossible to verify. What I did think might have happened was that they were desperate to get the people onside at a time when the tide was starting to turn [ press reporting the PJ suspicions and the like], having returned to the UK almost as soon as they had been made arguidos], so much beginning to look really negative...and to improve their image they wanted to be seen to be welcoming SS so as to convey the impression of they really had nothing to hide, why would we invite this ?

On reflection, it would under the circumstances have been inconceivable for them not to have had a visiter from SS as a matter of procedure, but part of me still wonders as much as they dreaded it,knowing it probably would be coming, they might have wished to pre-empt it to make a favourable impression. I found it hard to swallow that a barrister who went to PDL told them their parenting was within the bounds of responsibility and I am certain that Social Services did not take this stand.
What I strongly suspect and was my main point, whoever initiated that SS visit, the file created had nothing to do with it, it was already in existence. On balance you are probably correct, it is just that I am so very cynical about how the McCanns have behaved, I thought they might have asked for a visit simply image management reasons.
Its' a right old tangled web aint it

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Rainbow Fairy I need to do some more research on this. [ I don't think you ever sound dim btw far from it!]

I have only read about this visit to Rothley from unreliable sources [the McCanns ] and as you say it will be near impossible to verify. What I did think might have happened was that they were desperate to get the people onside at a time when the tide was starting to turn [ press reporting the PJ suspicions and the like], having returned to the UK almost as soon as they had been made arguidos], so much beginning to look really negative...and to improve their image they wanted to be seen to be welcoming SS so as to convey the impression of they really had nothing to hide, why would we invite this ?

On reflection, it would under the circumstances have been inconceivable for them not to have had a visiter from SS as a matter of procedure, but part of me still wonders as much as they dreaded it,knowing it probably would be coming, they might have wished to pre-empt it to make a favourable impression. I found it hard to swallow that a barrister who went to PDL told them their parenting was within the bounds of responsibility and I am certain that Social Services did not take this stand.
What I strongly suspect and was my main point, whoever initiated that SS visit, the file created had nothing to do with it, it was already in existence. On balance you are probably correct, it is just that I am so very cynical about how the McCanns have behaved, I thought they might have asked for a visit simply image management reasons.
Its' a right old tangled web aint it

It certainly is! I think we are both right on this, indeed its a tad similar to earlier when someone misunderstood your post, was it tigger? Yes, I think its highly possible the McCanns 'asked' for the visit, knowing it was coming anyway. What is that if not 'spin' to say "We asked them round (what we're not telling you is they would've come anyway and there's not a thing we could do about it. This way makes us look much better - responsible, even!)" Re-reading my post, I hadn't made it very clear but I meant the same as you, their 'announcement' was plain PR, plain and simple.
I also agree the CATS file was not concerned with what happened in PdL that spring. I think it was long-standing and serious, and far from the 'empty file reference' we've been led to 'believe'

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.

jd wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic53.html

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

jd wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic53.html

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

jd wrote:Could this be the reason jane tanner & co all tried to frame Murat with their 'sightings' of him, to deflect away from david payne?