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

Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 14:46

@aiyoyo wrote:@ TB

The letter taken in totality read to me as it was the Portuguese who asked for MET cooperation and not the other way around.

If that was the case, I think Rebekah Brooks was played at.  At that time I believe Coulson was still working at No 10.
She got her serialisation and No. 10 got Mccanns letter to justify the Review to the Public, quid pro quo.
aiyoyo,

The problem we are both having with this letter (and Chatelaine too I think) is the cumbersome and convoluted wording in paragraph two of Theresa May's letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, 12 May. Here it is:

"Following discussions between our Ambassador in Lisobon and the Portuguese Judicial Police, the Government received an offer of co-operation with the police here. The purpose of this letter is to request that ther Metropolitan Police Service take up that offer in view of the exceptional circumstances of this case. This request is supported by the Prime Minister".

From that letter, bearing in mind it is written to the Head of the Met, we can, I think draw the fdollowing:

1. At some stage in the past, say in 2010, the government [Labour before May 2010, Conservative/Liberal Coalition after that] asked the Portuguese authorities whether - if the British set up some kind of police review into the Madeleine McCann case - they would co-ooperate. Indeed, the McCanns had also begged the previous [Labour] Home Secretary for a review 

2. The government did this via the British Ambassador in Lisbon and the Head of the PJ

3. The PJ considered this request, and said, at some stage: 'OK, we will co-operate with it'

4. (in that limited respect, I agree with Chatelaine, some kind of review had been considered by both governments)

5. On 12 May 2012, for whatever reeson, Theresa May suddenly said: "I want you to take up the Portuguese offer of co-operation".

6. She then adds, in the next paragraph, that this co-operation 'could include a review of the information that has been dealt with so far'.

Do you think that is a correct intepretation of that letter?

The difference of opinion between me and Chatelaine then appears to be this:

Chatelaiine says the review would have happened anyway ("it was in the offing").

I say that Theresa May had consistently refused a review during her first year in office (May 2010 to May 2011) and was 'bounced' into it by horse-riding companions of the 'Chipping Norton set', Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron.  As HideHo's video tends to suggest.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 14:53

@Woofer wrote:
I clearly remember that the Portuguese review commenced about 3 months before the SY one, but goodness knows where I read it now.  I have a dig around.  I think it commenced in the March.
I'm sure that could be correct.

So why did Teresa May not set up the Met Police Review then - bit instead waited until hours after the McCanns' dramatic and urgent appeal for help was published in the Sun newspaper of 11 May?

And to revert to the subject matter of the thread, the Sun newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the world, and who is a much valued 'Papal Knight' of the Pope.

It must be relevant that the McCanns' prime publicist, public relations and reputation manager for the past 7 years, Clarence Mitchell, is so close to Murdoch's men. And was so close to the Pope's top men that he could arrange for the Pope to bless the McCanns in Rome?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 15:10

Portuguese review commenced March 2011 by team of detectives in Porto.
 
"A review team has been working since March 2011 to rake over the details of the original investigation and, after a period of collaboration with the Metropolitan Police, has decided to formally restart their inquiries."
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-case-reopened-portuguese-police-restart-investigation-into-her-disappearance-8901696.html

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 15:16

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
I clearly remember that the Portuguese review commenced about 3 months before the SY one, but goodness knows where I read it now.  I have a dig around.  I think it commenced in the March.
I'm sure that could be correct.

So why did Teresa May not set up the Met Police Review then - bit instead waited until hours after the McCanns' dramatic and urgent appeal for help was published in the Sun newspaper of 11 May?

And to revert to the subject matter of the thread, the Sun newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the world, and who is a much valued 'Papal Knight' of the Pope.

It must be relevant that the McCanns' prime publicist, public relations and reputation manager for the past 7 years, Clarence Mitchell, is so close to Murdoch's men. And was so close to the Pope's top men that he could arrange for the Pope to bless the McCanns in Rome?
 
Well exactly.  She didn`t want to - until bullied by Murdoch press.
 
But she`d changed her tune by October 2013 saying that she hoped it would enable a resolution to the terrible thing that happened to the McCann family and they would finally know what did happen to Madeleine.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbhLKGYt0w8
 
But, as you say, the original topic here is Rupert Murdoch - but surely it can`t just be down to sales of newspapers - they would have far more sales if Murdoch exposed the McCann`s lies IWHT.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 16:06

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
I cannot find any reasonable or logical explanation for Kate and Gerry to have pushed so hard for a review.  It made no sense, unless they already knew what the outcome would be.

As you say, Theresa May would not give them what they wanted, reaffirmed by Kate herself in the November 2010 fundraising campaign.  It seemed as if Plan A for the McCanns was to launch a new campaign with petition and Paypal button, that would continue forever more, as Theresa May was never going to give the review the go ahead.

REPLY: Indeed, I had also forgotten that; in fact wasn't the petition - which rapidly gained over 100,000 signatures - yet another attempt to 'bounce' Theresa May into giving in to their request for a review.
I have looked this up.

On this thread: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2162p30-false-names-on-the-mccanns-petition ...

I reported that by 18 April 2011, they had got 48,225 signatures on their petition.

The rate of signatures had slowed and it was clear that at that rate it would take another 2-3 years to reach 100,000.

But of course, just 24 days after my post, Brooks, Cameron and May granted the McCanns their fervent wish for a review.

So maybe they closed their petition as it was no longer necessary.

I think they never reached their 100,000 target

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 16:45

IIRC it was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who arranged the McCann's public "visit" to the Pope on the square.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 16:58

@Cristobell wrote:
I don't think Rebekah was played by anyone Aiyoyo, she is a very shrewd lady, though granted, she was not shrewd enough to avoid ending up in the dock.  I get the impression she is a passionate woman in every sense, who sometimes allows her heart to rule her head, but her business skills are sound. The rest of that paragraph is spot on imo.  


Shrewd as she may be there are always shrewder people/politician than her who will use her to their own ends just like she uses them.
Shrewd people do use tactics to get their way except each side does not necessary know the other side is playing them.
Cunning people do and can get outsmart by shrewder opponent without them realizing so long as their own objective is met.

Within TM's letter it is stated the "HO and FCO stand ready to offer what assistance we can in facilitating constructive engagement with the Portuguese Authorities"; another sign to me Portuguese sought assistance and UK agreed to assist.

My interpretation remains Portugal made the offer to (as in invited ) UK to help them; and not offered to help a UK led Review.
Under Portuguese system, it is not within PJ power to start a Review without approval from Public Ministry/AG office. Therefore it would make no sense for British Ambassador to talk to PJ (as stated in TM's letter). However if a consented Portuguese Review was in already in place PJ's approaching British Ambassador to seek cooperation with MET would be more in line with protocol I'd would thought.

For another thing, in a UK instigated co-operation you'd think HO would check with Police Commissioner first to ascertain feasibility and whether there is any point in spending the money before approaching foreign authority? You'd think the order of procedural steps would be to check with your side first before approaching foreign side, and not the other way around.













aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by tigger on 06.04.14 17:04

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
I don't think Rebekah was played by anyone Aiyoyo, she is a very shrewd lady, though granted, she was not shrewd enough to avoid ending up in the dock.  I get the impression she is a passionate woman in every sense, who sometimes allows her heart to rule her head, but her business skills are sound. The rest of that paragraph is spot on imo.  


Shrewd as she may be there are always shrewder people/politician than her who will use her to their own ends just like she uses them.
Shrewd people do use tactics to get their way except each side does not necessary know the other side is playing them.
Cunning people do and can get outsmart by shrewder opponent without them realizing so long as their own objective is met.

Within TM's letter it is stated the "HO and FCO stand ready to offer what assistance we can in facilitating constructive engagement with the Portuguese Authorities"; another sign to me Portuguese sought assistance and UK agreed to assist.

My interpretation remains Portugal made the offer to (as in invited ) UK to help them; and not offered to help a UK led Review.
Under Portuguese system, it is not within PJ power to start a Review without approval from Public Ministry/AG office. Therefore it would make no sense for British Ambassador to talk to PJ (as stated in TM's letter).  However if a consented Portuguese Review was in already in place PJ's approaching British Ambassador to seek cooperation with MET would be more in line with protocol I'd would thought.

For another thing, in a UK instigated co-operation you'd think HO would check with Police Commissioner first to ascertain feasibility and whether there is any point in spending the money before approaching foreign authority?  You'd think the order of procedural steps would be to check with your side first before approaching foreign side, and not the other way around.













That would be my interpretation of it as well.

As far as spin is concerned, it's a flea circus. The trick is to call the command just as the fleas are about to jump, thus giving the impression of control.

The McCanns' letter may have been standing by for a trick just like that.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 17:10

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC it was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who arranged the McCann's public "visit" to the Pope on the square.
Both did:

From my post on this thread:  

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1892-when-did-clarence-mitchell-arrange-for-the-mccanns-to-see-the-pope

The relevant facts are these.

It is reported that Clarence Mitchell flew out to Praia da Luz on Tuesday 22 May 2007.

The McCanns flew in Sir Philip Green's private jet to Rome to see the Pope the following Tuesday, meeting the Pope in a highly televised event the following day - Wednesday 30 May.

In a TV interview which I think has been published on YouTube, Clarence Mitchell openly boasts that it was he who arranged the visit to 'His Holiness', 'The Holy Father'. He had arranged it via then Roman Catholic Archbishop of England, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, who notoriously covered up the child sexual abuse of one of his priests in his former diocese covering Sussex - and arranged for the offender simply to be transferred to another parish.

The article above claims that 'while in Portugal' Mitchell was 'reportedly behind the McCanns' visit to the Pope'.

But can that be true?

Did he not, more likely than not, arrange this with Archbishop O'Connor well before he left the U.K. for Portugal?

Spoke to the Archbishop, explained the need, arranged the date etc.? Are we expected to believe that all this was done on the 'phone from Portugal?

And if in fact the visit to the 'Vicar of Christ' was arranged before his flight out to Praia da Luz on 22 May, when did Clarence Mitchell first really get involved in this case?

Given that he was the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit at the time, working at the heart of the Cabinet Office, is it not probable that he was actively involved in the public relations exercise in this case from Day One - Thursday 3 May 2007?

ETA: I wonder how MItchell and his colleagues are getting on with this project: "...just last month he was pushing a new initiative at the MMU looking at an online monitoring product to track public debates from blogs".

UNQUOTE 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 17:29

@tigger wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I don't think Rebekah was played by anyone Aayoyo, she is a very shrewd lady, though granted, she was not shrewd enough to avoid ending up in the dock.
Shrewd as she may be there are always shrewder people/politicians than her who will use her to their own ends just like she uses them...Within TM's letter it is stated the "HO and FCO stand ready to offer what assistance we can in facilitating constructive engagement with the Portuguese Authorities"; another sign to me Portuguese sought assistance and UK agreed to assist...if a consented Portuguese Review was in already in place PJ's approaching British Ambassador to seek co-operation with MET would be more in line with protocol I'd would thought.

That would be my interpretation of it as well. As far as spin is concerned, it's a flea circus. The trick is to call the command just as the fleas are about to jump, thus giving the impression of control. The McCanns' letter may have been standing by for a trick just like that.
Even if you are right, aiyoyo and tigger, the facts are that the McCanns...

1. Badgered Labour Home Secretaries before the May 2010 General Election for a review

2. AND FAILED TO GET ONE

3. Badgered Theresa May, Coalition Home Secretary for a year (May 2010 - May 2011)

4. AND FAILED TO GET ONE

5. Got 50,000 signatures for a review on an online petition

6. AND STILL FAILED TO GET ONE...

...until Rebekah Brooks intervened.

So the questions are:

A. Did Theresa May for a whole year refuse constant pressure to grant a review? and

B. When, and why did she chnage her mind?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 17:39

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC it was Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who arranged the McCann's public "visit" to the Pope on the square.
Both did:

From my post on this thread:  

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1892-when-did-clarence-mitchell-arrange-for-the-mccanns-to-see-the-pope

The relevant facts are these.

It is reported that Clarence Mitchell flew out to Praia da Luz on Tuesday 22 May 2007.

The McCanns flew in Sir Philip Green's private jet to Rome to see the Pope the following Tuesday, meeting the Pope in a highly televised event the following day - Wednesday 30 May.

In a TV interview which I think has been published on YouTube, Clarence Mitchell openly boasts that it was he who arranged the visit to 'His Holiness', 'The Holy Father'. He had arranged it via then Roman Catholic Archbishop of England, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, who notoriously covered up the child sexual abuse of one of his priests in his former diocese covering Sussex - and arranged for the offender simply to be transferred to another parish.

The article above claims that 'while in Portugal' Mitchell was 'reportedly behind the McCanns' visit to the Pope'.

But can that be true?

Did he not, more likely than not, arrange this with Archbishop O'Connor well before he left the U.K. for Portugal?

Spoke to the Archbishop, explained the need, arranged the date etc.? Are we expected to believe that all this was done on the 'phone from Portugal?

And if in fact the visit to the 'Vicar of Christ' was arranged before his flight out to Praia da Luz on 22 May, when did Clarence Mitchell first really get involved in this case?

Given that he was the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit at the time, working at the heart of the Cabinet Office, is it not probable that he was actively involved in the public relations exercise in this case from Day One - Thursday 3 May 2007?

ETA: I wonder how MItchell and his colleagues are getting on with this project: "...just last month he was pushing a new initiative at the MMU looking at an online monitoring product to track public debates from blogs".

UNQUOTE 

Are you referring to this project:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/07/ministry-defence-fund-research-online

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 17:46

Cormac Murphy-O`Connor was Bishop of Arundel and BRIGHTON from 1977 - 2000 before becoming Archbishop of Westminster.  It was during his time at Arundel and Brighton that he covered up paedophilia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml

Paedophilia in the Catholic Church
by Angus Stickler
An investigation by the Today Programme has uncovered new evidence that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales failed to act appropriately when dealing with paedophile priests in his former diocese of Arundel and Brighton.

The Cardinal is currently the subject of a police inquiry over claims that he covered up the activities of one paedophile priest - Father Michael Hill. Yesterday Hill admitted abusing more children - some of them disabled.

Steven Williams' family were struggling and turned to the Church for help. Their priest was Father Michael Hill. He soon became a trusted family friend. Peter, Steven's son, was - disabled - just eight years old - and an easy target.

Steven describes his son's disabilities thus: "He had cerebral palsy and as a child, he was was much more handicapped than you'd ever guess meeting him now - with a very serious limp - one leg considerably shorter than the other, damage to one arm - he was very poorly co-ordinated in one arm, dyslexic - this kind of thing."

Yesterday Michael Hill, who has already served a five year sentence for abuse, pleaded guilty to six counts of indecent assault against three children aged between 10 and 14 - one of them in a wheelchair.

Two years ago we revealed that Michael Hill's Bishop knew he was a paedophile but allowed him to continue working. That Bishop was Cormac Murphy O'Connor, then in charge of Arundel and Brighton, now the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal and Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Documents from that original investigation confirm what the Bishop knew and when. In July 1981 Michael Hill was sent to a therapeutic centre following concerns about his sexual behaviour. In letters, Cormac describes the matter as "very serious". He questions whether Hill should have the pastoral care of a parish.

Peter and Steven Williams are shocked by this. Because just a few weeks after this date, Hill was allowed to conduct a baptism at a family retreat for disabled children. Cormac, they say, was there.

After Hill's first trial in the 1990s, the then head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Basil Hume, described the case as "extremely regrettable".

He said: "Clearly if the local Bishop had known then what is revealed now, a different course would have been taken..." According to the documents we've seen, and the parents we've spoken to, the Bishop did know - he was even warned by health professionals that Hill was a dangerous paedophile.

Peter believes that, as the Bishop in charge, Cormac's actions condemned him to four years of abuse. "I feel livid towards him. The sweeping under the carpet as it were was his doing. It put me in the danger that I was in for that whole length of time. "

We've now been told of more allegations relating to eight different priests in Arundel and Brighton - all under the wing of Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Some have been via anonymous letters sent directly to our offices - one via the charity Kidscape.

But we've also been contacted directly by victims, parents and parishioners. In the four cases we've had time to investigate, the victims and parents say they feel betrayed by the Church and the Bishop.

One family went to the Bishop in the mid '90s, after the daughter alleged that she'd been sexually assaulted by a priest. During the police investigation, another victim came forward, but, because the girl had health problems, the case was dropped.

Despite serious concerns about the priest, he returned to his old job. When he left several months later, parishioners were under the impression it was part of a standard diocesan reshuffle. The family were shocked. They say that the Police and Bishop told them that they thought the allegations were true.

This case is mirrored by one in a different part of the diocese. This time it concerns the alleged abuse of a young man with learning difficulties. He was too vulnerable to give evidence and again the case was dropped. This social worker was stunned when he found out the priest had been reinstated.

Church records list this priest at four different parishes in the diocese - he is still holding mass. These allegations were made in the mid '90s around the time when the church bought out new guidelines to deal with sex abuse cases.

Parents, victims and parishioners concede that the church authorities appeared to follow the letter of their law, but not the spirit. Yes - the Police were informed - but despite serious concerns they say the priests were allowed to continue working.

And in the 1980s this appeared to be Church policy. We were told of another priest who parishioners say moved on because of allegations of abuse. But we've also found that Cormac Murphy O'Connor allowed a paedophile from Scotland to work in his diocese.

In the early '80s Father Alan Love assaulted two young boys in Glasgow - he was charged with lewd behaviour but the case never went to court. He - like Hill - was sent away for therapy and then on to Chichester in Arundel and Brighton. Even after admitting the assaults he was allowed to stay. A statement issued by the Church said that Father Love "enjoys the full confidence of his bishop." Peter Williams says this beggars belief.

We could only find one priest in the diocese, other than Michael Hill, who has been removed permanently from parish work - this was Father Christopher Towner who was given a two month suspended sentence for importing child porn in 1988.

Responding to our original investigation, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor issued a statement apologising to victims. In his defence he said the decisions he made at that time were not irresponsible and that there was a genuine ignorance among bishops, priests, and society at large about the compulsive nature of child abuse.

Cold comfort for the victims of paedophile priests.


____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 17:50

Tony - Didn`t the previous Home Secretary, Alan Johnson (Labour), do a report on the feasibility of a review sometime before the 2010 Election.  But Labour lost the election so where that ended up I don`t know.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by aquila on 06.04.14 17:54

@Woofer wrote:Cormac Murphy-O`Connor was Bishop of Arundel and BRIGHTON from 1977 - 2000 before becoming Archbishop of Westminster.  It was during his time at Arundel and Brighton that he covered up paedophilia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_priests.shtml

Paedophilia in the Catholic Church
by Angus Stickler
An investigation by the Today Programme has uncovered new evidence that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales failed to act appropriately when dealing with paedophile priests in his former diocese of Arundel and Brighton.

The Cardinal is currently the subject of a police inquiry over claims that he covered up the activities of one paedophile priest - Father Michael Hill. Yesterday Hill admitted abusing more children - some of them disabled.

Steven Williams' family were struggling and turned to the Church for help. Their priest was Father Michael Hill. He soon became a trusted family friend. Peter, Steven's son, was - disabled - just eight years old - and an easy target.

Steven describes his son's disabilities thus: "He had cerebral palsy and as a child, he was was much more handicapped than you'd ever guess meeting him now - with a very serious limp - one leg considerably shorter than the other, damage to one arm - he was very poorly co-ordinated in one arm, dyslexic - this kind of thing."

Yesterday Michael Hill, who has already served a five year sentence for abuse, pleaded guilty to six counts of indecent assault against three children aged between 10 and 14 - one of them in a wheelchair.

Two years ago we revealed that Michael Hill's Bishop knew he was a paedophile but allowed him to continue working. That Bishop was Cormac Murphy O'Connor, then in charge of Arundel and Brighton, now the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal and Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Documents from that original investigation confirm what the Bishop knew and when. In July 1981 Michael Hill was sent to a therapeutic centre following concerns about his sexual behaviour. In letters, Cormac describes the matter as "very serious". He questions whether Hill should have the pastoral care of a parish.

Peter and Steven Williams are shocked by this. Because just a few weeks after this date, Hill was allowed to conduct a baptism at a family retreat for disabled children. Cormac, they say, was there.

After Hill's first trial in the 1990s, the then head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Basil Hume, described the case as "extremely regrettable".

He said: "Clearly if the local Bishop had known then what is revealed now, a different course would have been taken..." According to the documents we've seen, and the parents we've spoken to, the Bishop did know - he was even warned by health professionals that Hill was a dangerous paedophile.

Peter believes that, as the Bishop in charge, Cormac's actions condemned him to four years of abuse. "I feel livid towards him. The sweeping under the carpet as it were was his doing. It put me in the danger that I was in for that whole length of time. "

We've now been told of more allegations relating to eight different priests in Arundel and Brighton - all under the wing of Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Some have been via anonymous letters sent directly to our offices - one via the charity Kidscape.

But we've also been contacted directly by victims, parents and parishioners. In the four cases we've had time to investigate, the victims and parents say they feel betrayed by the Church and the Bishop.

One family went to the Bishop in the mid '90s, after the daughter alleged that she'd been sexually assaulted by a priest. During the police investigation, another victim came forward, but, because the girl had health problems, the case was dropped.

Despite serious concerns about the priest, he returned to his old job. When he left several months later, parishioners were under the impression it was part of a standard diocesan reshuffle. The family were shocked. They say that the Police and Bishop told them that they thought the allegations were true.

This case is mirrored by one in a different part of the diocese. This time it concerns the alleged abuse of a young man with learning difficulties. He was too vulnerable to give evidence and again the case was dropped. This social worker was stunned when he found out the priest had been reinstated.

Church records list this priest at four different parishes in the diocese - he is still holding mass. These allegations were made in the mid '90s around the time when the church bought out new guidelines to deal with sex abuse cases.

Parents, victims and parishioners concede that the church authorities appeared to follow the letter of their law, but not the spirit. Yes - the Police were informed - but despite serious concerns they say the priests were allowed to continue working.

And in the 1980s this appeared to be Church policy. We were told of another priest who parishioners say moved on because of allegations of abuse. But we've also found that Cormac Murphy O'Connor allowed a paedophile from Scotland to work in his diocese.

In the early '80s Father Alan Love assaulted two young boys in Glasgow - he was charged with lewd behaviour but the case never went to court. He - like Hill - was sent away for therapy and then on to Chichester in Arundel and Brighton. Even after admitting the assaults he was allowed to stay. A statement issued by the Church said that Father Love "enjoys the full confidence of his bishop." Peter Williams says this beggars belief.

We could only find one priest in the diocese, other than Michael Hill, who has been removed permanently from parish work - this was Father Christopher Towner who was given a two month suspended sentence for importing child porn in 1988.

Responding to our original investigation, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor issued a statement apologising to victims. In his defence he said the decisions he made at that time were not irresponsible and that there was a genuine ignorance among bishops, priests, and society at large about the compulsive nature of child abuse.

Cold comfort for the victims of paedophile priests.

Forget the Peter Principle. Start believing that people are promoted to their level of evil.

aquila

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 17:56

@Woofer wrote:Tony - Didn`t the previous Home Secretary, Alan Johnson (Labour), do a report on the feasibility of a review sometime before the 2010 Election.  But Labour lost the election so where that ended up I don`t know.
Well, during late 2009 and early 2010, there was in fact a stream of reports, emanating I am sure from the McCann camp, about various forces - the Met and West Yorkshire being two of them - being asked by the Home Office to do 'scoping exercises' - which we used to call 'feasibility studies'. Maybe one or even more than one was carried out.

I am sticking though with Theresa May refusing a review until shoved into it by Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron. 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.14 18:04

@Woofer wrote:Tony - Didn`t the previous Home Secretary, Alan Johnson (Labour), do a report on the feasibility of a review sometime before the 2010 Election.
I covered this in my FOI request, 19 March 2010:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


From: Anthony Bennett                                                  66 Chippingfield
Tel: 01279 635789                                                      HARLOW
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com                                   Essex
                                                                                           CM17  0DJ

Home Office                                                                 Wednesday 13 October 2010
Information Access Team
Freedom of Information Act Section
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
LONDON

SW1P 4DF

By e-mail to: foirequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

And by hard copy

Dear Sir/Madam

YOUR REFERENCE: 14428 - Attention: Ian Lister

re: Review of Home Office Freedom of Information Act decision not to answer all of my 12 questions to the Home Office dated 19 March 2010

Thank you for your letter dated 9 September 2010 in which you disclose limited information in response to my 12 questions, asked back on 19 March this year. 

I have carefully noted your reasons for refusing information but nevertheless now seek a review of your decision, within the two month period for replying.

You have set out your reasons, based on Sections 31, 36 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, for refusing most of the information sought. I now set out these reasons in list form:

Statutory reasons why information may be withheld. Because it may:

·         prejudice the prevention of crime

·         prejudice the detection of crime

·         prejudice the apprehension of offenders

·         prejudice the prosecution of offenders

·         inhibit the provision of advice (as between Ministers and public officials)

·         inhibit the exchange of views (as between Ministers and public officials)

·         disclose law enforcement tactics

·         disclose (potential) lines of enquiry

·         potentially prejudice the ability to pursue a prosecution

·         reveal information about ‘police tasking’

·         reveal information about ‘operational police decisions’.

In addition you explained, specifically in relation to this case, that the release of certain of the information I requested:

·         ‘might be of assistance to anyone involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann’.

I trust I have fairly set out the basis on which information has been refused to me. I acknowledge that you have, in fairness, set out, in three long paragraphs, considerations which in this unusual case would favour disclosure of this information. By way of background, I would respectfully remind you of the unusual events leading up to my request. My letter of 19 March contained this paragraph:

QUOTE

During the past two weeks, several newspapers have referred to the following matters in relation to the Madeleine McCann case:

a)      one or more meetings between Home Secretary Alan Johnson and the McCanns

b)      several meetings between the McCanns and staff of the Home Office

c)      the commencement of a ‘scoping exercise’ to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance may take

d)     the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, to advise the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation

e)      the reported decision by Jim Gamble and the Home Office to appoint West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation.

UNQUOTE

These newspaper reports all appear to have been sourced from the McCanns’ chief public relations officer, Mr Clarence Mitchell. Indeed the preponderance of newspaper articles on the subject of Madeleine McCann over the past three years have been sourced from Mr Mitchell, and either quote from him directly or refer to him in anonymised terms such as ‘a source close to the McCanns’, ‘a family friend’ etc. There have been many occasions when the accuracy of stories generated by Mr Mitchell has been questioned.

Moreover, it is known that Mr Mitchell was, until May 2007, when Madeleine was reported missing, the Head of the 40-strong government Media Monitoring Unit, and that during the recent election campaign Mr David Cameron appointed him as his assistant to his Director of Communications, Andy Coulson. In between times he was employed as a public relations consultant for Freud Communications, which is owned by Matthew Freud, the son-in-law of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is generally acknowledged to be the world’s most powerful media mogul and in Britain owns SKY TV, the newspapers News of the World, Times, Sunday Times and Sun, plus many other media interests.

The news stories I referred to in my original letter clearly made statements, no doubt read by millions of British people, about specific actions by the Home Office in relation to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Given the Home Office’s apparent direct involvement, at the behest of the McCanns, in decisions affecting operational police decisions, itself a departure from accepted Home Office procedures that it does not get involved in such matters, there were, as you can see, very good reasons for my asking those particular questions. 

It is very important, and in the public interest according to the criteria that you yourself outlined in your letter, to establish whether the spokesman for the McCanns, and the newspapers that published the information about the Home Office, were telling the truth about e.g. the involvement of Jim Gamble and the West Yorkshire police etc. In at least one newspaper article, it was said that an anonymous and senior Home Office official had briefed the press. Given all that you say in your letter about the need not to disclose information potentially useful to anyone involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, nor information about law enforcement tactics and lines of enquiry etc., that is a matter for great concern, hence my request for public clarity about the Home Office’s actions.

You referred specifically in your letter to the dangers of releasing information which ‘might be of assistance to anyone involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann’. It is important therefore to place firmly on the record that the outcome of the Portuguese Police investigation, archived since July 2008 and summarised in two lengthy reports, one by the Portuguese Police and one by the Portuguese judicial authorities, was that both the following hypotheses as to why Madeleine disappeared remained under consideration: (a) that Madeleine was abducted by a person/persons as yet unknown, or (b) that Madeleine had died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and been hidden to avoid an autopsy. It was added that new and credible evidence could lead to the enquiry on either hypothesis being opened at any time.

In those circumstances, it is absolutely right for the British public to be able to question and seek information on decisions made by the Home Office - and in that context the decisions of successive Home Office Ministers and their staff to hold private meetings with the McCanns, and possibly their advisers as well, when new evidence might yet implicate them in Madeleine’s disappearance, is rightly being questioned in many quarters. I suggest that so long as the specific criteria mentioned in Sections 31, 36 and 40 of the FoI Act for refusing information are not breached, it must be in the public interest for the Home Office to disclose further information about its actions.

Against that background, which answers your request on page 2 of your letter to say why I am dissatisfied with your response, I now set out the questions I asked and explain the decisions of yours which I request you to review and reconsider:         


1.      On what date or dates has the Home Secretary Alan Johnson had meetings with one or both of the McCanns?

RESPONSE: Please supply the actual date. None of the reasons you have given prevent you saying on what date this meeting was held.

2.      Who else was present at these meetings: in particular, was any lawyer or other adviser for the McCanns present?

RESPONSE: Taking account all that you say and realising that I would not be entitled to (and in fact never asked for) information about the content of those meetings, there is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer that you can give to my question: “Was any lawyer or other adviser for the McCanns present [at the meeting with the Minister]?”  You do not have to specify who any persons were, neither their name(s) nor their job title(s) nor their role(s). None of the criteria you have set out in your letter prevent you answering my straightforward question by a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

3.      On what dates did meetings take place between one or both of the McCanns and staff of the Home Office?

RESPONSE: In your letter, you say: “There were no subsequent meetings between…Home Office officials and Mr [Dr] and Mrs [Dr] McCann or any representative acting on their behalf, between then [October 2009] and the date of your letter”. Please disclose, as asked, what dates (if any) there were meetings between either of the McCanns and any Home Office officials or members of the Minister’s Private Office before the meeting between the McCanns and Alan Johnson in October 2009.

4.      Please identify all the staff who met with the McCanns and again identify whether the McCanns had legal or other representatives with them.

RESPONSE: I have dealt with the issue of whether or not the McCanns were accompanied to any meetings under Question (2) above). I am otherwise content with the information you have supplied i.e. about the status of the staff who attended the meeting between the McCanns and the former Minister and do not require the actual names of those persons. 
 
5.      On what date did the McCanns first approach the Home Office asking for a review or re-investigation by a British police force into Madeleine’s disappearance?

RESPONSE: Please answer this question. I do not see how answering this question would compromise any criteria that you have set out under Sections 31, 36 and 40 of the FoI Act. It does not in any way, shape or form prejudice police enquiries and operation nor could it be deemed to compromise the privacy issues you raise in your letter. I am only asking for a date.

6.  Is the Home Office carrying out what the Daily Telegraph called ‘a scoping exercise’ to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance may take’ and, if so, on what date did that scoping exercise commence?

RESPONSE: There are in effect two possible answers to my question.

Either: “We are not and have not carried out a scoping exercise as reported in the Daily Telegraph”.  Or: “A scoping exercise was commenced on [date]”.

Again I cannot see how answering that question could contravene any of the criteria against publication of information that you have set out in your letter.

7.  Why, according to the press, was Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, given the role of advising the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation?

RESPONSE:  Again there appear to be two possible answers to this question:

Either: “Jim Gamble was not given the role of advising the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation [into Madeleine’s disappearance]”. Or: “Jim Gamble was chosen because [reasons]”.

    I  am unable to understand how answering that question could contravene any of the criteria you have set out. Please answer this question.

 8.      On what date did the Home Secretary ask Mr Gamble to perform this role?

 RESPONSE:  Please see above. If he was asked to advise the Home Office, as newspapers reported, it can do no harm to supply the date on which he was formally asked.

 9.      On what date did Mr Gamble make his recommendation?

RESPONSE: Please see above and please answer the question.

10.  Did he, as reported, recommend West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation?

 RESPONSE: We know from other sources, not least an FoI request that I made to Leicestershire Constabulary that was answered within the 20-day limit, that there is an officer, Detective Inspector Michael John Graham, together with Detective Constable Robert Waddington, still heading up an ongoing investigation (‘Operation Task’) within Leicestershire Constabulary into Madeleine’s disappearance. I recognise that if any other force or unit were involved in any re-investigation or were following up new lines of enquiry that it may not be in the public interest to disclose that information, therefore I withdraw that question. Nevertheless statements have been made to the press, apparently confirmed by anonymous staff, that West Yorkshire Police had been asked to carry out a review or re-investigation. You may wish to consider whether in the public interest you should reveal whether those press reports were true or untrue statements. Furthermore, were any other investigation unit to be set up, it would probably want to receive helpful information from the public; in those circumstances the contact details of any such unit should be made available to the public in any event.   

 11.  Has West Yorkshire Police, as reported, been asked to carry out a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

 RESPONSE:  I also withdraw that question on similar grounds as in response to Question (10) above.

 12.  If so, what is the brief or remit that the Home Office has given to West Yorkshire Police?

 RESPONSE:  I also withdraw that question on similar grounds as in response to Questions (10) and (11) above.

 I look forward to learning your response to my request for a review as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 18:07

@ Tony - "I am sticking though with Theresa May refusing a review until shoved into it by Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron. "
 
I agree.
 
On the subject of `reviews`, what I`ve never understood is why the Portuguese AG ordered a review (well before the SY one) by Helena Monteiro`s team in Porto and what led him to order this review.
 
AND why the case was later re-opened in Faro and not Porto.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 06.04.14 18:23

Thank you Tony for re-posting your FOI request.   What patience and clarity of mind you have. roses

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 19:59

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I don't think Rebekah was played by anyone Aayoyo, she is a very shrewd lady, though granted, she was not shrewd enough to avoid ending up in the dock.
Shrewd as she may be there are always shrewder people/politicians than her who will use her to their own ends just like she uses them...Within TM's letter it is stated the "HO and FCO stand ready to offer what assistance we can in facilitating constructive engagement with the Portuguese Authorities"; another sign to me Portuguese sought assistance and UK agreed to assist...if a consented Portuguese Review was in already in place PJ's approaching British Ambassador to seek co-operation with MET would be more in line with protocol I'd would thought.

That would be my interpretation of it as well. As far as spin is concerned, it's a flea circus. The trick is to call the command just as the fleas are about to jump, thus giving the impression of control. The McCanns' letter may have been standing by for a trick just like that.
Even if you are right, aiyoyo and tigger, the facts are that the McCanns...

1. Badgered Labour Home Secretaries before the May 2010 General Election for a review

2. AND FAILED TO GET ONE

3. Badgered Theresa May, Coalition Home Secretary for a year (May 2010 - May 2011)

4. AND FAILED TO GET ONE

5. Got 50,000 signatures for a review on an online petition

6. AND STILL FAILED TO GET ONE...

...until Rebekah Brooks intervened.

So the questions are:

A. Did Theresa May for a whole year refuse constant pressure to grant a review? and

B. When, and why did she chnage her mind?

I see where you are coming from but IMO a Portuguese sought review puts it the right perspective than Mccanns sought review.
Theresa May may not wish to pander to the Mccanns' demands but a Portuguese invite is a different matter altogether.
Of course I could be wrong.  

Besides, Madam Brooks' threat or not, I can't see how Cameron can promise Brooks anything without first obtaining Portuguese concurrence.
Cameron, for all his might and persuasion power would NEVER be able to get Portuguese Law Ministry to approve a Review as under Portuguese system you need to have new evidence to justify review/reopening. And, at the time UK had neither new evidence nor a valid-to-the-Portuguese-reason for them to justify reopening the case for Review.  The Mccanns demanding it and Mdm Brooks threatening No 10 are worthless reasons as far as the Portuguese law requirement is concerned.

That is another reason why I believe the approach was made by the Portuguese and not the other way around.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Cristobell on 06.04.14 21:15

I agree with Tony.  There was an about turn and the Review was given the go ahead.  There may well have been a quick scoping exercise to test the viability the outcome they wanted.  One key question at the time of the decision to re-open was 'can we pursue this to a satisfactory conclusion?'  We don't at this moment know what the 'satisfactory conclusion' is.  However, getting down to the nitty gritty, they had to be at least 75% (just guessing) sure that they could pursue the case to trial and prosecution or the waste of public funds would be called into question.  Ditto the Portuguese police.  If we step back for one moment from all the gypsies, tramps and thieves and look at the bigger picture, both forces must have had targets in sight at the point the reviews were opened.  

I think Rebekah's relationship with the McCanns was mutually beneficial, but given the seedier side of operations at NI, it may be that she, or perhaps even DC via secret services or whatever, found out that the Portuguese were making serious enquiries with a view to re-opening the case, who knows, perhaps someone foresaw trouble ahead?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 23:25

@Cristobell wrote:I agree with Tony.  There was an about turn and the Review was given the go ahead.  There may well have been a quick scoping exercise to test the viability the outcome they wanted.  One key question at the time of the decision to re-open was 'can we pursue this to a satisfactory conclusion?'  We don't at this moment know what the 'satisfactory conclusion' is.  However, getting down to the nitty gritty, they had to be at least 75% (just guessing) sure that they could pursue the case to trial and prosecution or the waste of public funds would be called into question.  Ditto the Portuguese police.  If we step back for one moment from all the gypsies, tramps and thieves and look at the bigger picture, both forces must have had targets in sight at the point the reviews were opened.  

I think Rebekah's relationship with the McCanns was mutually beneficial, but given the seedier side of operations at NI, it may be that she, or perhaps even DC via secret services or whatever, found out that the Portuguese were making serious enquiries with a view to re-opening the case, who knows, perhaps someone foresaw trouble ahead?

A quick Scoping Exercise on the scenarios as you described  would suggest preconceived ideas - going in with a close mind 3/4  full of pre-determined conclusion you already decided on, aiming to work towards achieving -  that is not objective,  NOT AT ALL.

We all know TB is legendary for his view that the Review is a white wash exercise. Thus, it goes without saying the Scoping exercise for a white wash would have to be in total contrast to the one you described, in that it will have to be full of scenarios on how to achieve a white wash result and how to work towards that conclusion.

Isn't the whole point of a full and comprehensive review be about going in with an open mind, be objective, and see where the evidence falls ?  

Otherwise, which sort of  viable scenarios you think the MET looked at (presuming MET did the scoping exercise)?  Would they have got their directive from No. 10 for the scoping exercise ? And if so, which one ? The white wash one ? or the Prosecution one ?  

It makes no sense to envisage that the MET Police Commissioner can be corrupted by No. 10 before it takes off.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Cristobell on 07.04.14 0:59

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:I agree with Tony.  There was an about turn and the Review was given the go ahead.  There may well have been a quick scoping exercise to test the viability the outcome they wanted.  One key question at the time of the decision to re-open was 'can we pursue this to a satisfactory conclusion?'  We don't at this moment know what the 'satisfactory conclusion' is.  However, getting down to the nitty gritty, they had to be at least 75% (just guessing) sure that they could pursue the case to trial and prosecution or the waste of public funds would be called into question.  Ditto the Portuguese police.  If we step back for one moment from all the gypsies, tramps and thieves and look at the bigger picture, both forces must have had targets in sight at the point the reviews were opened.  

I think Rebekah's relationship with the McCanns was mutually beneficial, but given the seedier side of operations at NI, it may be that she, or perhaps even DC via secret services or whatever, found out that the Portuguese were making serious enquiries with a view to re-opening the case, who knows, perhaps someone foresaw trouble ahead?

A quick Scoping Exercise on the scenarios as you described  would suggest preconceived ideas - going in with a close mind 3/4  full of pre-determined conclusion you already decided on, aiming to work towards achieving -  that is not objective,  NOT AT ALL.

We all know TB is legendary for his view that the Review is a white wash exercise. Thus, it goes without saying the Scoping exercise for a white wash would have to be in total contrast to the one you described, in that it will have to be full of scenarios on how to achieve a white wash result and how to work towards that conclusion.

Isn't the whole point of a full and comprehensive review be about going in with an open mind, be objective, and see where the evidence falls ?  

Otherwise, which sort of  viable scenarios you think the MET looked at (presuming MET did the scoping exercise)?  Would they have got their directive from No. 10 for the scoping exercise ? And if so, which one ? The white wash one ? or the Prosecution one ?  

It makes no sense to envisage that the MET Police Commissioner can be corrupted by No. 10 before it takes off.
I don't foresee a whitewash Aiyoyo.  As has been pointed out often on here, even a cursory glance at the files and the evidence available reveals that the parents are involved.  The problem the authorities have, both here and in Portugal is, is proving it.  It is my belief that something changed - that is one or both police forces finally had something tangible enough to justify opening reviews on what was a cold case.  That 'something' imo, did not exist before and it had nothing to do with the report prepared by Jim Gamble and CEOP. 

In November 2010, the McCanns launched a Petition asking the Home Secretary for a Review into Madeleine's disappearance.  Whether they had been asking before, we don't know, but the Petition had a paypal button, and part deux of the November 2010 appeal was for good hard cash.  In fact its my belief they were broke at that time and desperate to fill up the coffers.  Even they were not shameless enough to ask for money just for the sake of it, so they took a gamble in launching the Petition for a review - be careful what you wish for.  The Petition had been running for almost 7 months when the review was granted, and if memory serves me correctly, it had around 36,000 signatures with 60,000+ still needed in order to deliver it to the government. Ergo, it was not the Petition that got the McCanns the Review, it was something else.   

After the launch of the Petition it was pretty much forgotten and it lingered away in the background as no-one could be arsed to plug it on social media anymore.  

The next big event on the McCanns celebrity calender was the launch of Kate's book Madeleine, originally penned in for 29th April 2011, but put back to 12th May because of the Royal wedding.  The letters from the McCanns to David Cameron and his to them appeared on the front pages of the Sun to coincide with the release of the book on the 12th May. Were the letters also held back due to Prince William's nuptials?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.04.14 8:49

@Cristobell wrote:
In November 2010, the McCanns launched a Petition asking the Home Secretary for a Review into Madeleine's disappearance.  Whether they had been asking before, we don't know...
But Cristobell, we know very well that they had been asking for a review for at least a year before.

We know that about a year before they started the November 2010 petition, they had met with Alan Johnson, Home Secretary - see my post up the thread where I asked the Home Office (unsuccessfully) a simple FOI Act question asking when that meeting was.

There were also many press reports about various police forces carrying out a 'scoping exercise' about a  review.

The petition was born out of the McCanns' sheer frustration that Theresa May's response to setting up a costly review of the Madeleine McCann case was: No, Nein, Non, Njet,

The immoveable object of Theresa May was overwhelmend by the irresistable force of Rebekah Brooks.

Which brings me back to Rupert Murdoch, the subject of this thread, and the connections certain people very much involved in this case have with him and his family

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rupert Murdoch bags coverage of new Pope in 3D making two previous Popes into saints - on 27 April 2014

Post by Woofer on 07.04.14 9:07

It`s helpful (to me anyway) to see a timeline of events - this one is from the BBC News site.
 
2010
6 March: The McCanns criticise the release of previously unseen Portuguese police files on their daughter's case to British newspapers. The 2,000-page dossier details dozens of possible sightings of Madeleine since her disappearance.
28 April: Near the third anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry McCann says it is "incredibly frustrating" that police in Portugal and the UK had not been actively looking for Madeleine "for a very long time".
August: Kate and Gerry McCann hold private talks with Home Secretary Theresa May.
November: The McCanns sign a publishing deal to write a book about their daughter's disappearance. They also launch a petition calling for a full review of the case by the UK and Portugal.
 
 
2011
May: Portuguese AG orders review of McCann case to be done by detectives in Porto. (my insert).
12 May: In an open letter in the Sun newspaper, the McCanns ask the prime minister to launch an "independent, transparent and comprehensive" review of all information relating to Madeleine's disappearance.
They publish a book, entitled Madeleine, which they hope will prompt people holding vital information about what happened to Madeleine to come forward. Sale proceeds will go towards the Find Madeleine fund.
13 May: Prime Minister David Cameron writes to the McCanns telling them the home secretary will be in touch to set out "new action" involving the Metropolitan Police.
6 September: The McCanns are among alleged victims who request to be "core participants" in the first part of the Leveson Inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.
9 September: British detectives reviewing the search for Madeleine hold their first face-to-face meetings with Portuguese police chiefs.
16 November: Lawyer David Sherborne tells the Leveson Inquiry the treatment of the McCanns by the press was a "national scandal".
23 November: The McCanns tell the Leveson Inquiry they were left distraught by press suggestions they were responsible for Madeleine's death.
 

Age progression techniques show how Madeleine might look aged nine
 
 
2012
12 January : Daily Star editor Dawn Neesom tells the Leveson Inquiry that she regrets the paper's coverage of Madeleine's disappearance.
24 April: The detective leading the UK review of Madeleine's disappearance says they have the "best opportunity" yet to find her. Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood tells BBC's Panorama his team are "seeking to bring closure to the case".
25 April: Detectives reviewing evidence issue a computer-generated image of what she might look like aged nine.
26 April: Portuguese authorities say they are not reopening their investigation.
 
 
2013
17 May: UK detectives reviewing the case say they have identified "a number of persons of interest".
The e-fit images feature in a BBC Crimewatch appeal
4 July: The Metropolitan Police says it has new evidence and has opened a formal investigation. It says it is investigating 38 "persons of interest".
12 September: A £1m libel case against former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral begins in Lisbon.
4 October: Scotland Yard detectives say mobile phone records may hold the key to solving the case. There are 41 potential suspects, they say.
14 October: A BBC Crimewatch appeal features e-fit images of a man seen carrying a blond-haired child of three or four, possibly wearing pyjamas, in Praia da Luz at about the time Madeleine went missing. It also shows a detailed reconstruction of events on the night she disappeared.
24 October: Portuguese police reopen their inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, citing "new lines of inquiry". The Scotland Yard inquiry will run alongside the Portuguese investigation.
31 October: CdeM report that Portuguese police have new lead which arose during their review - Tractor Man. (my insert)
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13386785

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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