The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Mark Warner Resort

Page 7 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Guest on 17.03.15 11:13

@aquila wrote:
As usual everything in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is confusing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/portugal/740884/Happy-in-a-nanny-state.html

Well, you mentioned the typical profile of a Mark Warner customer - why do they all have to be so helpless?

Seriously,did they run adverts saying things like "All inclusive holidays for numbnuts!" and "Can't take care of your children in everyday life? Come to us and we won't take care of them on your behalf!"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mark Warner

Post by G-Unit on 17.03.15 11:31

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@aquila wrote:
As usual everything in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is confusing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/portugal/740884/Happy-in-a-nanny-state.html

Well, you mentioned the typical profile of a Mark Warner customer - why do they all have to be so helpless?

Seriously,did they run adverts saying things like "All inclusive holidays for numbnuts!" and "Can't take care of your children in everyday life? Come to us and we won't take care of them on your behalf!"
Oh, and Crecheman who didn't have a clue where he was wandering off to with his child so ended up heading back to the creche - must have forgotten where his apartment was! Not to mention the 'educated' Tapas 7 who couldn't string a sentence together; Gerry McCann who  couldn't remember 12 hours after his daughter disappeared which door he'd used to enter his apartment to check on her. They did seem to attract some rather dim people.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by HelenMeg on 17.03.15 11:34

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@aquila wrote:
As usual everything in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is confusing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/portugal/740884/Happy-in-a-nanny-state.html

Well, you mentioned the typical profile of a Mark Warner customer - why do they all have to be so helpless?

Seriously,did they run adverts saying things like "All inclusive holidays for numbnuts!" and "Can't take care of your children in everyday life? Come to us and we won't take care of them on your behalf!"
big grin

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 17.03.15 11:55

@aquila wrote:
@universe wrote:Universe to Aquila... I did not know that Egypt & Dubai are in Europe, thanks for the geography lesson !. Please look at all the previous research & reports that have been done already into Mark Warners childminding licence being in jeopody even before the Mccanns arrived in PDL due to using young, inexperienced, unqualified, non work visa approved nannies etc. Read info on this in my other thread called "Follow The Money Trail". An abduction of Madeleine was a far better option for Warners than an acknowledgement that their nanny was in apt. 5a minding Madeleine on SUNDAY evening when she fell off the sofa onto tiles & died. Far safer to pay off the Mccanns to say there was no nanny there.
    Aquila, you posted on June 18th. 2013 that "It's all about the contract, if you pay a childminder/babysitter that person is expected to remain in-situ for the time of babysitting. A breach of this contract would be neglect "...... anywhere in the world...Mark Warner & their nanny would have been aware of this obligation.
Could you help me out with a link for this please?

I had forgotten about the Egypt and Dubai holidays offered by Mark Warner however, the holidays offered in Europe (the main thrust of holidays offered by MW) did not require nannies with visas/work permits (as long as they came from European staff which it appears they did).

Mark Warner holidays in PDL didn't offer a baby listening service which was well known to the T9 prior to embarking on their holiday. Two of the couples took baby monitors; the McCanns did not. The nannies could be booked to babysit on a private arrangement at around 10 euros per hour. That's my understanding.

I do understand what you're getting at. I don't understand why your theory is so dogmatic as to blame Mark Warner holidays (a relatively small-fry company in terms of billing) for having enough clout to bring in the big guns to cover up the disappearance of a child - that's unless you are suggesting that MW holidays is a bent operation and offered something a little more than childcare to their patrons and if that's what you're doing you need to spit out some definite grounds for that.

Just as an aside, here is an article from the Daily Telegraph, dated 21st April 2007, less than two weeks prior to Madeleine's disappearance. It's worth a read.

As usual everything in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is confusing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/portugal/740884/Happy-in-a-nanny-state.html
Read that article & clicked the MW link below it. No Egypt or Dubai resorts on offer now, so probably wasn't the main thrust of its business model as you rightly suggest.

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 402
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by macdonut on 17.03.15 17:06

A close relative is very senior in MW and was at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and I can, with complete certainty, say that all talk of MW being involved in a cover up is totally incorrect.  Personally, I don't think Universe's reasoning behind MW involvement is credible but, even if it was, it simply isn't the case.

For what it's worth, my relative believe's the McCann's had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.  I believe differently.

macdonut

Posts : 34
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-01-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Warner Resort

Post by G-Unit on 17.03.15 21:54

@macdonut wrote:A close relative is very senior in MW and was at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and I can, with complete certainty, say that all talk of MW being involved in a cover up is totally incorrect.  Personally, I don't think Universe's reasoning behind MW involvement is credible but, even if it was, it simply isn't the case.

For what it's worth, my relative believe's the McCann's had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.  I believe differently.
I agree-it's such a complicated idea. I think there may have been some very low-level local
skullduggery, but not sanctioned or instigated by the company.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 18.03.15 2:57

@macdonut wrote:A close relative is very senior in MW and was at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and I can, with complete certainty, say that all talk of MW being involved in a cover up is totally incorrect.  Personally, I don't think Universe's reasoning behind MW involvement is credible but, even if it was, it simply isn't the case.

For what it's worth, my relative believe's the McCann's had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.  I believe differently.
Universe to macdonut; A close relative of mine works for a huge financial worldwide accounting company & he holds a very senior position as a director....he often has no idea what his co-directors in in the same company are involved in with their own company projects; it is all done on a "need to know" basis, some are not included in the loop. For what it's worth, my relative believe's that the company has integrity in it's business dealings, but I believe differently. big grin .

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by macdonut on 18.03.15 8:59

Universe, I didn't expect you to change your long held beliefs on the strength of one post :).  All I would add though is that my relative was heavily involved in this case from the very first day and it's inconceivable that there could have been any cover up without my relative's involvement or knowledge.  As G-UNIT says, there possibly could have been some local MW cover up but definitely nothing that anyone outside PDL was involved in.  Happy to disclose more to Admin if interested.

macdonut

Posts : 34
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-01-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by aquila on 18.03.15 10:24

@macdonut wrote:Universe, I didn't expect you to change your long held beliefs on the strength of one post :).  All I would add though is that my relative was heavily involved in this case from the very first day and it's inconceivable that there could have been any cover up without my relative's involvement or knowledge.  As G-UNIT says, there possibly could have been some local MW cover up but definitely nothing that anyone outside PDL was involved in.  Happy to disclose more to Admin if interested.
Whatever you say macdonut, Universe will either ridicule it or insult you (albeit 'with the greatest respect' as a precursor).

Thank you for posting information.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 18.03.15 16:11

Universe to Aquila, Plebgate, Knitted & Macdonut;... What a team !!!  To try YET AGAIN to answer your enquiry re. my Warner/Mccann coverup theory I will highlight the essential components  of it for you all to digest together for simplicity's sake... good luck & here goes.....
           ***   The Mark Warner Company & their highly paid "Crisis Management Team" from the Bell Pottinger PR Company NEVER knew anything about Madeleine having been sedated long term by her parents when she was discovered dead behind the sofa in their apartment while Warner's nanny was babysitting her on SUNDAY evening. This was & is still the Mccanns "big secret" from them & the world.
           ***   Warner's would have offered the Mccanns a large amount of $$$$$$$ to claim to the world that Madeleine was alone in apt. 5a with no nanny there & would help the Mccanns to stage manage an "Abduction"  for the PJ & newspapers to grapple with. Warners could not risk the legal, financial & PR risk to their company if the truth of their employed nannys negligence that fateful SUNDAY evening.
           ***  The Mccanns  would have been thrilled with this financial, legal & PR offer put to them by Warner's "Crisis" team as they, UNBEKNOWST to Warners were terrified of an autopsy being done on Madeleine's body. This was the perfect way out of trouble & ruin for the Mccanns. This decision to do the coverup together was the resolution that would be a win-win solution for Mccanns & Warner company.OMO.

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by plebgate on 18.03.15 17:00

So Mark Warner committed yet another criminal act of withholding evidence i.e. the booking of the nanny for the apartment and receipt of payment for same.

As some have pointed out already, a very high risk strategy for the company as they could not ever be sure that their secrets would be safe and could face financial ruin not to mention a lengthy prison sentence at some time in the future.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 18.03.15 20:07

@universe wrote:Snipped:            ***   Warner's would have offered the Mccanns a large amount of $$$$$$$ to claim to the world that Madeleine was alone in apt. 5a with no nanny there & would help the Mccanns to stage manage an "Abduction"  for the PJ & newspapers to grapple with. Warners could not risk the legal, financial & PR risk to their company if the truth of their employed nannys negligence that fateful SUNDAY evening.

Thanks Universe. I was, as I've said, fully conversant with your hypothesis, albeit progress is being made as you now have clarified that Mark Warner's approached the McCanns, and not the other way round. 

My question(s) sought to understand your logic in the representatives of Mark Warner on that fateful day going down the higher risk route of a cover-up instead of distancing themselves from the McCanns and it still doesn't add up.

For your hypothesis to work you are saying that when faced with a dead child, someone from Mark Warner called up their management line, in the dead of night, to get authority to promise lots of money to the parents, so as when the parents arrived in the room to find their dead daughter, someone from Mark Warner took a chance on the parent's not responding negatively, (e.g. with violence, given the circumstances of coming home to find their daughter dead!), to the comment "Look, your daughter's is dead owing to our negligence, but I have authority to give you £'millions if you agree to a cover up".

I don't think Mark Warner would have taken the risk of saying that to the parents, (let alone getting financial approval in the dead of night). Can you imagine the PR disaster if the parents had turned round, (as would surely be the most likely reaction) and said a simple "No way!"... It would have definitely finished off Mark Warner, more surely and conclusively than just having a death through their babysitter's negligence to deal with.     

It just doesn't seem likely to me that Mark Warner's would risk making such a request to the parents of any dead child.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by j.rob on 18.03.15 21:56

@universe wrote:Universe to Aquila, Plebgate, Knitted & Macdonut;... What a team !!!  To try YET AGAIN to answer your enquiry re. my Warner/Mccann coverup theory I will highlight the essential components  of it for you all to digest together for simplicity's sake... good luck & here goes.....
           ***   The Mark Warner Company & their highly paid "Crisis Management Team" from the Bell Pottinger PR Company NEVER knew anything about Madeleine having been sedated long term by her parents when she was discovered dead behind the sofa in their apartment while Warner's nanny was babysitting her on SUNDAY evening. This was & is still the Mccanns "big secret" from them & the world.
           ***   Warner's would have offered the Mccanns a large amount of $$$$$$$ to claim to the world that Madeleine was alone in apt. 5a with no nanny there & would help the Mccanns to stage manage an "Abduction"  for the PJ & newspapers to grapple with. Warners could not risk the legal, financial & PR risk to their company if the truth of their employed nannys negligence that fateful SUNDAY evening.
           ***  The Mccanns  would have been thrilled with this financial, legal & PR offer put to them by Warner's "Crisis" team as they, UNBEKNOWST to Warners were terrified of an autopsy being done on Madeleine's body. This was the perfect way out of trouble & ruin for the Mccanns. This decision to do the coverup together was the resolution that would be a win-win solution for Mccanns & Warner company.OMO.


I think this might partly be the scenario! I suspect it is a bit more complicated because of the incredibly high level support the McCanns received. And I also think there is some evidence of pre-planning some kind of 'abduction hoax'. 

Jez Wilkin's role is very mysterious. I do not believe he is an impartial eye-witness (do they exist in this case)? And the number of pretty high profile guests is also intriguing. 

But the above theory would at least partly explain why Mark Warner seemed to send off staff who were potentially very important eye-witnesses. And staff also appear to have been 'gagged', imo. I can't believe that some of the staff did not have suspicions. 

With regard to the above theory, I would not put it past the McScams to have deliberately implicated Mark Warner. So they could then pin at least some of the blame on someone else - which they love to do, imo. They definitely all knew about the 'baby listening' service offered and would also have known, therefore, that it was fallible. 

One of my theories is that there was a pre-meditated plan for a (media) abduction hoax. I think Mark Warner resort was deliberately chosen as the 'scene'. Perhaps they had arranged for one of the nannies to do 'baby listening' outside the Tapas apartments, which would allow a window of opportunity for 'the abduction'. Under this scenario, Mark Warner would feel a sense of responsibility as there are some inherent weaknesses in the 'baby listening' service. As uncovered by a BBC journalist in an undercover operation shortly before 'the abduction' and then publicized in 2008. The journalist observed that the nanny could not be outside every door and a five year old child had, in fact, wandered out of a bedroom and was found close to the pool area.

Interesting, imo, how the media had picked up on the potential weaknesses of the baby listening arrangement only weeks before Madeleine's (staged and faked) 'abduction'.

I believe that something went wrong during the week and the planned staged and faked abduction of an alive child morphed into a staged faked abduction to cover up the abuse + death of a child. I also believe that various people 'landed TM in it' at the last minute - hence the 'disaster' Gerry spoke of and the strange bowing and wailing that the police observed Kate and Gerry doing on Thursday evening.

Mark Warner may have been tricked into believing that Madeleine really was abducted by a random stranger. Which would of course shine a spot-light on their baby-listening arrangement in other resorts. Kate writes about the baby listening in her book stating that after 'the abduction' she doubts if Mark Warner now offer that service. 

That suggests to me that the McScams had deliberately targetted a potential weakness in Mark Warner childcare arrangements. And it is a fact that there was some very negative publicity about MW childcare back in 2005 and then again in 2008. The Mcs always go for the achilles heel. It's their modus operandi.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by j.rob on 18.03.15 22:16

One of my theories is that there was a pre-meditated plan for a (media) abduction hoax. I think Mark Warner resort was deliberately chosen as the 'scene'. Perhaps they had arranged for one of the nannies to do 'baby listening' outside the Tapas apartments, which would allow a window of opportunity for 'the abduction'. Under this scenario, Mark Warner would feel a sense of responsibility as there are some inherent weaknesses in the 'baby listening' service. As uncovered by a BBC journalist in an undercover operation shortly before 'the abduction' and then publicized in 2008. The journalist observed that the nanny could not be outside every door and a five year old child had, in fact, wandered out of a bedroom and was found close to the pool area.


------


Which might just account for the 'amazing coincidences' of Jez Wilkins (TV producer) being outside  (allegedly!) apartment 5A at such a crucial time on Thursday evevning; his partner, Bridget O'Donnell (journalist, ex-Crimewatch) and Jez being woken up at 1am in the early hours after the 'abduction' (allegedly!) by the resort manager and asked if they had seen anything. And then (allegedly!) go back to sleep. And the very early media involvement.


It was a scam that went wrong, imo. Or maybe someone/several people deliberately sabotaged it (paedo rings expose?)


Theorizing, as always.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 19.03.15 1:41

@j.rob wrote:Snipped:

It was a scam that went wrong, imo. Or maybe someone/several people deliberately sabotaged it (paedo rings expose?)


Theorizing, as always.
Hi jrob,

Reading your ideas about a "scam that went wrong" made me think.  I have an open mind about there being some form of pre-planning. 

I tried to think of a scam that would be relatively simple to carry out but would give a guaranteed large return.  An abduction scam doesn't feel likely to have guaranteed a good return...so what about a glorified "accident claim"? Being doctors they would have been all too aware of the huge payouts in negligence cases where the NHS was at fault.  So, what about simply ‘creating’ a scenario of personal injury (of a little photogenic child) to get a guaranteed payout from either a hotel resort chain or the travel insurance. It’ll have been an almost solid bet to get a nice tidy sum in the bank!

But it doesn’t stop there… Being doctors they may even have planned to create the impression of there being long term side effects of any injuries. This could have been done via administering drugs (at the periodic health check-ups to monitor long term effects), or maybe even drawing upon the collusion of the other doctors in the T9 who may have been able to be used as (seemingly independent) ‘sign-offs’ to any ongoing checkups.  This would have increased any pay-outs enormously, (not to mention all those disability benefits and care allowance payments) and how handy to have submitted plans in 2006 for an extension with separate accommodation to make it look like 24hr care was being administered!. Importantly, everyone involved, being doctors, would have been reassured in the knowledge that little Madeleine would have no lasting ill-effects from any superficially administered injuries, such as a bang on the head, and at aged 4 no long term memory of her unwitting involvement in the events!


It would have been a simple scenario, nothing too complicated, almost fool-proof. Maybe what transpired was something like this:

(i) The scam was to be an ‘injury claim’ just like the ‘ambulance chasers’ that we are all familiar with.
(ii) It was guaranteed to pay out as they could have either sued the resort, or claimed on insurance… or both!
(iii) It would have also been lucrative in the long-term because of the ability (being doctors) to fake and/or sign-off non-existent, long term, life altering, injuries.
(iv) It would have only required a small group of doctors to aid with (iii) above to pull off an ongoing monthly payout, (n.b. If people think it odd that Film-maker Jez and his Crimewatch wife were there then maybe they were involved and had an advisory role in creating the drama and staging of a believable scenario?) 
(v) As the parents had various contacts they knew they’d be able to milk the story for all it was worth and ensure the news, of a poor child injured through a resort’s neglect, would be front page and thus help boost their subsequent claim(s)
(vi) The doctors thus created superficial injuries on Madeleine and placed her behind the sofa before the babysitter arrived
(vii) The plan was that if/when MBM awoke then the babysitter would discover her and call an ambulance, (or if Madeleine didn’t wake then Plan B would be when the parents get back to the room and say “Where’s Madeleine?” they can search and find her in the presence of a very baffled babysitter).
(viii) The plan hinged on the very likely outcome that no one would ever believe the babysitter when they pleaded their innocence and said (quite truthfully) that they sat there all night, wide awake, reading a book and with no idea at all how the child got behind the sofa and injured themselves! Everyone would write-off the babysitter as probably distracted by their iphone or simply lazy and sleeping!

So, it would have been very simple ‘conjuring trick’ with a pre-injured Madeleine, with a bang to the head, simply being planted behind the sofa before the Nanny had turned up thus resulting in Mark Warner being the fall-guys with no option but to carry the can and be taken to the cleaners.  Kerching!!

However something went wrong. 

Maybe the 'superficial' injuries turned out to be not so superficial and Madeleine died there that night, or, maybe the Nanny sat on the sofa and it slid back on the smooth floor unknowingly squashing the unconscious Madeleine so she could not breath. The detail doesn’t matter. What may have transpired is that Madeleine didn’t wake up during the evening. The parents returned and did their planned “Where’s Madeleine” routine. They ‘found’ her, in the presence of the babysitter, and realised she was in a very bad way (coma or dead?). In the heat of the moment, under immense stress, panicking, (maybe they’d drugged her too, to make it ‘easier’ when they inflicted the pre-planned injuries, and feared they'd overdone the dosage), they turned to the babysitter and said “We’ll deal with it, we're doctors... Don’t call an ambulance, we’re doctors”.  Thus, because the babysitter didn’t call an ambulance, but left it to the two doctor parents to sort out, (simply hoping, like many people might in the circumstances, that it would all be AOK in the end and their job would be safe), they ended up implicating themselves in what eventually transpired, (OK… I admit this bit of the scenario is the weak link and needs further thought!). Anyway…


(ix) If Madeleine did not die but was oxygen starved and slipped into a coma maybe the T9 tried for the rest of the week to treat her and bring her back to wakefulness so as she'd be OK to fly back and they could all let out a sigh of relief that they'd averted disaster. But they ultimately failed. The T9 doctors would have then all been guilty of not getting Madeleine the proper medical care. All their careers would have been over, let alone their all being prosecuted. This forced their hand in having to be part of a pact of silence to cover up what had happened. This ultimately necessitated that Madeleine be sadly disposed of as the holiday drew to a close.
(x) The 'abduction' was thus the cover up, not the original scam
(xi) The fund was simply making the best of an 'accident scam' that went horribly, horribly, wrong...and the result of thinking on their feet, (maybe to help pay off a few people and buy their silence?).
(xii) No one in Mark Warner would need to be involved (though this scenario doesn’t preclude a few people there knowing about it, such as the babysitter, and implicating themselves by not calling the authorities and allowing the parents/other doctors to take over - on the day it all happened and over the ensuing several days).
(xiii) The McCanns already had all the (unwitting) media and political contacts in their little black book in anticipation of creating a media furore to bolster their original ‘our daughter was neglected and was horribly injured’ scam… so were ahead of the curve in being able to, instead, get wheels in motion to promote the hastily cobbled together abduction story.  Panic and guilt caused all the stops to be pulled out and the juggernaut and the media circus started its inexorable roll. Gerry’s Masonic contacts ensured full support from (unwitting and duped) establishment figures. Ultimately those helpers have been as fooled as everyone else has been and the ‘protection’ afforded the McCanns isn’t evidence of a major conspiracy, it's simply a result of knowing the right people, calling in as many favours as possible... and a fair bit of luck.

So... if there's evidence of a pre-planned scam does the above 'injury claim scam' sound like a possible contender? Even if the scenario above is fundamentally flawed I can't think at the moment of any more plausible motive for pre-planning than the (almost) guaranteed pay out of an fake injury claim. Is there any other way that an 'injury claim may have gone wrong and unraveled that better fits the evidence?

I am, of course, happy for all the many flaws in my idea to be pointed out and I sincerely welcome each and every challenge. If it's a silly idea I'll be the first to relegate it to the dustbin of failed theories. 

Disclaimer: This is of course entirely just an idea resulting from thinking on the hoof to try and join the dots between: a motive, (financial); why other doctors in the T9 were involved; why the ‘abduction’ was not pre-planned (because if it was they’d have had time to do a far better job!); etc.
I am of course not making any suggestion whatsoever that the above is what actually happened, nor that anyone named above was in any way involved in whatever happened to Madeleine, etc. etc. etc

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 19.03.15 5:31

Universe to j.rob; There never was any child "listening service" ever offered at the Mark Warner resort in PDL.  It was never an option offered in PDL, unlike at most other Warner European resorts because the PDL resort was too spread out amongst non-Warner holiday makers & the Ocean Club guests. Even the Mccanns & the Tapas 9 knew this advertised fact before they left England !!!!! ....so, therefore I do not understand WHY you keep stateing the opposite to be true ?????

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 19.03.15 17:17

Universe ti j.rob Have you been threatened with being called a distraction for expressing your theory on here or only me ??????

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Daryl Dixon on 19.03.15 17:30

After reading the various thesis put forward by Knitted and Universe, I can't help feeling that I've slipped into the Twilight Zone.

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by universe on 19.03.15 17:54

Universe to Twilight zone ; From all that I've read on this forum it seems that Knitted has not put forward any theory but spends it's energy criticising my theory !

universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Knitted on 19.03.15 20:21

@Daryl Dixon wrote:After reading the various thesis put forward by Knitted and Universe, I can't help feeling that I've slipped into the Twilight Zone.

Hi Daryl, how very dare you!!...It's the only theory I've ever put forward and it took me well over a quarter of an hour to dream it up and type it all tease

(May I reassure members on the forum that I only did it to see what Universe's response was going to be... as she had been for a few days very notably failing to respond to my repeated questions to her about the fundamental flaw in her idea relating to the nature of any conversation between the Mccanns and Mark Warner. I didn't put it in a reply to her as that would have been too obvious but I was seeing whether she critiqued it and what rational she used. It was my little game to see if she did actually have critical thinking skills after all, in which case she'd have exposed herself as a shill due to her not applying those skills to her own hypothesis!! As it happened things came to a head and it was all a waste of time!!  Having said that, I must admit by the time I'd finished thinking of it I'd almost convinced myself!!)
spit coffee

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Warner made no profit for 16 years - so why do it?

Post by haroldd2 on 14.05.15 14:33

The Mark Warner company didn't make any profit for the first 16 years. (Source.)

Do I have to spell out what that indicates?

And billionaire-bracket Philip Edmonds didn't half skedaddle fast from the hotel in PdL, a few hours after Madeleine McCann was reported "missing", not even checking out.

What would his kidnap and ransom insurer say about his staying at such a place? Because if the security isn't up to scratch, and he gets snatched, they won't pay out. Someone at that level is used to having their movements made subject to security considerations every day of the year.

haroldd2

Posts : 122
Reputation : 44
Join date : 2014-01-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by HelenMeg on 14.05.15 15:09

I'm sorry Harold but could you spell it out a little - what does it indicate - it is probably obvious but I cant think straight enough to know... please help a little!!

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by G-Unit on 08.06.16 9:35

I have reason to believe that Mark Warner and possibly Ocean Club staff knew that the group were planning to operate their own listening service and housed them together for that purpose.

It's possible that only one person present on 3rd May would have had this knowledge; the Head of Accommodation, Vitor Santos, who dealt with the booking of the group. 

Also present on 3rd May was Santos' long term boss, George Crossland. He was one of three partners who had just sold the Ocean Club to Mark Warner and he had agreed to remain as Manager for two years to ensure a smooth handover. 

Had Mr Crossland discovered that evening that his staff had wittingly or unwittingly made it possible for the group to operate their unsafe method of childcare he probably wouldn't have been amused.

Of all the people present he was the one with a personal interest in making sure that no blame whatsoever was attached to the Ocean Club/Mark Warner. He probably also had contacts very high up in the Mark Warner organisation. 

All just my own thoughts, of course.

G-Unit

Posts : 312
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by BarryTheHatchet on 08.06.16 18:27

I believe there was a story doing the rounds at one time that the group actually negotiated a discount on the holiday because there was no baby-listening service.  But I don't know whether this is substantiated, or just forum myth.  Maybe someone else can remember this and clarify?

____________________

BarryTheHatchet

Posts : 187
Reputation : 253
Join date : 2016-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Warner Resort

Post by Nina on 08.06.16 18:36

@BarryTheHatchet wrote:I believe there was a story doing the rounds at one time that the group actually negotiated a discount on the holiday because there was no baby-listening service.  But I don't know whether this is substantiated, or just forum myth.  Maybe someone else can remember this and clarify?
Here you go BarryTheHatchet.A long read but answers your question........................http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 7 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum