FOI Act request about meetings between staff of Operation Grange and BBC Crimewatch - REFUSED

russiandoll wrote:[ I look good in a hat though, don't you think?]

I prefer your previous incarnation :-)

That reflects my feelings too, RD.

Speaking generally though, I respect anyone who has the courage to stand up and speak out against a great injustice.

It also takes courage to admit that you were fooled about the circumstances of a case - I'm thinking mainly of Hollie Greig but it also applies to the most blinkered McCann supporters.

IMO the FOI act is nothing but a joke, in the deep dark distant past some nuisance probably asked an awkward question of TB (Blair not Bennett) >> 'that's a tricky one, better create a new department to handle the wretched nosey public and at the same time resolve the problem of pending redundancies in the department of silly sods' <<

No disrespect to the people employed in the lower ranks of the civil service, they are only ordinary people vaguely trained to repeat the civil service language contained in the government issue training manual. Much the same as trying to get a sensible answer from the bank these days, if you're not talking to an electronic 'person' you are talking to someone sitting in front of a computer screen who knows nothing more about you and your affairs than what is shown on the screen, then it's all down to the book of questions and answers ie the training manual. Look at the ridiculous calls received by the emergency services, the system is there so it will be abused by hoaxsters, the mentally unbalanced and the deluded, it's all part of the service.

Hands up anyone who has ever had a genuine complaint requiring attention by a government department (or some other organisation designed to represent public interest )and actually achieved a positive result. They faff and fluff about quoting this act, that code of practice, some other best practice jargon, passing the buck here, throwing the muck there, which all results in nothing but dereliction of purpose.

IMO this FOI is a public pacifier designed to walk the walk but most definitely not to talk the talk. At the end of the day they are only likely to give out information that is already known, they certainly wouldn't be willing to give out information that might be detrimental to their 'operational strategy' would they?

Perhaps this has been suggested previously (im unaware)

I think all the British posters and members on this forum should hound all your local MPs and demand that questions are asked regarding OG activities and costs to YOU the British tax payers and a repremand and explanation from the author of the FOI reply to TB.

Yes, I agree.  Perhaps we could compile a list of questions.

It seems that the Dutch version of the FOI law doesn't include giving information on active police investigations.
Which makes sense to me   

Great respect to TB for all he does. I have 24 hours, badly spent each day. He has 48, well spent! I concur too that I wouldn't waste too much time on posters responses that don't justify a response (and I'm probably one of those, but not for negative reasons - I mean no harm, I just write too much). I also see how he can be perceived as annoying (e.g. by the authorities, and especially if the case is a ww.). I also see how other views (e.g. RD) make sense and that some efforts may be dangerous for him, counter productive or don't actually propel the case, but he may be asking questions based on information we don't understand.

Perhaps TB could make a request to any willing others to be the name on any further requests or ask someone to request A or B so that it is distinguishable enough not to be seen to be him? If that sounds wrong on principal, (i.e. why should I disguise myself) then that's perhaps the price you have to pay for now. Or use another username, if he doesn't still already.

Let's also note, for those who condemn him for wasting authorities time. They are employees, paid to do this job and he is asking questions permitted by law and NOT harassing/overburdening. TB isn't really paid, is just one man and (as someone very relevantly pointed out) he has spend 100's+ of hours having to deal with and respond to CR. Reminds me a bit of the convicted murderer who sued for someone pushing me and getting a bruise and this being the main focus of the case. Let's get things in proportion. Credit where credit is due and I hope those who are critical of others have a proportionate record of praise for the good bits.

I would also add that if we lobby on certain issues like money, at this stage, it could put pressure on the authorities (govt) to (prematurely?) end the case. If money (and the interests of the McCann's?) and nothing else were the ONLY issue, great. This would not be good IF the case is not being whitewashed though or if we need the full, completed details ready for analysis later - if published. I also know that we don't fully know if the MET can prosecute at all, certainly on the very serious aspects. As others have said, (and in spite of it being 7 years old and all the money involved), perhaps when we have a light (at least visible at the end of the tunnel, to say for certain, whether this case is a ww or not, then that is the time to consider a for mass probing and get togethers. Things like specific costs for specific things can wait (IMO), surely. The events are on public record and the NEED to find exact amounts are not needed NOW, so can wait. £7m or whatever is more than enough detail for now to know that this is a very expensive case. We get that as does the public and media. I can see how those who are very carefully trying to piece together close to proof of where the case is heading, want (perhaps subtly and inconspicuously) specific questions to find out supporting evidence, but then again, who am I to question some of you guys/dolls?

Thanks.

1soapy wrote:Great respect to TB for all he does. I have 24 hours, badly spent each day. He has 48, well spent! I concur too that I wouldn't waste too much time on posters responses that don't justify a response (and I'm probably one of those, but not for negative reasons - I mean no harm, I just write too much). I also see how he can be perceived as annoying (e.g. by the authorities, and especially if the case is a ww.). I also see how other views (e.g. RD) make sense and that some efforts may be dangerous for him, counter productive or don't actually propel the case, but he may be asking questions based on information we don't understand.

Perhaps TB could make a request to any willing others to be the name on any further requests or ask someone to request A or B so that it is distinguishable enough not to be seen to be him? If that sounds wrong on principal, (i.e. why should I disguise myself) then that's perhaps the price you have to pay for now. Or use another username, if he doesn't still already.

Let's also note, for those who condemn him for wasting authorities time. They are employees, paid to do this job and he is asking questions permitted by law and NOT harassing/overburdening. TB isn't really paid, is just one man and (as someone very relevantly pointed out) he has spend 100's+ of hours having to deal with and respond to CR. Reminds me a bit of the convicted murderer who sued for someone pushing me and getting a bruise and this being the main focus of the case. Let's get things in proportion. Credit where credit is due and I hope those who are critical of others have a proportionate record of praise for the good bits.

I would also add that if we lobby on certain issues like money, at this stage, it could put pressure on the authorities (govt) to (prematurely?) end the case. If money (and the interests of the McCann's?) and nothing else were the ONLY issue, great. This would not be good IF the case is not being whitewashed though or if we need the full, completed details ready for analysis later - if published. I also know that we don't fully know if the MET can prosecute at all, certainly on the very serious aspects. As others have said, (and in spite of it being 7 years old and all the money involved), perhaps when we have a light (at least visible at the end of the tunnel, to say for certain, whether this case is a ww or not, then that is the time to consider a for mass probing and get togethers. Things like specific costs for specific things can wait (IMO), surely. The events are on public record and the NEED to find exact amounts are not needed NOW, so can wait. £7m or whatever is more than enough detail for now to know that this is a very expensive case. We get that as does the public and media. I can see how those who are very carefully trying to piece together close to proof of where the case is heading, want (perhaps subtly and inconspicuously) specific questions to find out supporting evidence, but then again, who am I to question some of you guys/dolls?

Thanks.

Good point well made

Interesting that the Met are now speaking on behalf of the Information Commissioner's Office themselves now. It is absolutely right that Operation Grange is held accountable for everything it spends. This is in part because it seems ludicrous that so much is being spent on what is a "review"  - not a criminal investigation of a crime committed under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police - of what they insist is just a 'missing person' case that is seven years old.

They should be held accountable as there are undoubtedly many current cases these resources could be diverted to with greater effect (if you believe they are competent) for a greater number of citizens.

I would be interested to hear an official response from the Information Commissioner's Office as to the conduct of SY in refusing this request - how difficult is it to get a list of the officers who are permanently attached to the case? They have around £450 to spend on each request before refusing to provide the info - do they really pay their officers so much that they can't easily answer such a question? We all get diversions from our day to day jobs - I work in a front line customer service industry and there are always lots of things that stop me from being effective in my job but you just get on with it.

And by Tony picking up the baton and asking these FOI questions - I'm sure it saves them from being inundated with lots more voluminous correspondence from many other folk who use this forum. Remember that Op Grange's funding is supposed to be coming directly from the Home Office (it is meant to have a contingency fund that no-one has ever heard of before for such 'special cases') so maybe this should be a question raised in Parliament by someone's local MP? Any takers??

I echo the above posts (1soapy & pariaaa) - Mr B has done more than the rest of us on this board, having put his reputation and his financial situation on the line, and I would think has most probably suffered an awful lot of stress in his most difficult search for justice. More power to him I say!! I therefore wonder how we can really question his FOI request. I, for one, can't understand why this response was so threatening sounding and really begs more questions than it answers.  As others have said - SY asked the public to help - Mr B has offered his plus sent info he felt might be also helpful to their search - but this appears to be not really what they are looking for. Who knows what they are looking for? It certainly doesn't appear to be the elephant in the room - as the MC's are still, it would seem, a no-go area. As are the Tapas Crew. In fact it would appear that they are the least investigated out of everyone - though these adults were the closest and the last (of course bar the abductor????) to see little Maddie. But their suspect status appears to be cast aside for SY's preference - burglars, Roma Gypsys, ex-ocean club employees....before we even get to our old friend Smelly Man...and the rest of a rogues gallery of dead paedos etc.

After reading recent news - yes - I'm still firmly with the whitewash brigade, sadly....And I mean that, as I truly would love to believe that Andy and the boys aren't just going through the motions, playing for time. And again, I'll be the first to hold my hands up and say - good on you SY - if you do crack this case and bring about the arrest of a certain group of people. But.....7 years so far....How much longer are the public going to have to wait, how much longer are the public going to have to pay for all this? Or is Andy's investigation going to continue for another 7 years? Or at least until his retirement.....

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

nomendelta wrote:I absolutely think every single thing referring to this needs to be open to public scrutiny.

Which, of course, it never will be.

The more this is covered up by the government and police and treated like a cloak and dagger case there is only one conclusion I can personally come to about what really happened to Madeleine McCann and I hope she didn't suffer too much by the pervert scumbags who came into contact with her. And I hope her siblings are safe.

Yes, could not agree more. Poor child - I shudder to think what happened to her on that 'holiday'. What with the fake photos, the crying incidences, Kate's novella, the Tapas gang who chose to cover up for them, imo. It's a total disgrace. What is being done to ensure the safety of the surviving children of the McCanns? One of their children has 'disappeared' under extremely suspicious circumstances.

Does anyone give a damn? 

When you look at the picture that emerges in terms of photo-shopped photos, 'Madeleine was Here' dodgy films, the McCann's media interviews, Gerry's 'wider agenda' and 'good marketing ploy' comments and actions, your heart really does sink.

Ugh. They all repulse me.

'Vexatious' is a term that is also used by medical professionals when patients who have been harmed by medical procedures try to gain redress. It's a nifty little device that serves to try to silence as well as discredit those who are asking pertinent questions that might lead to opening of the proverbial worm cans.

Well I take my hat off to TB. Without people like him and GA, the death of a 3 year old child could've been very easily swept under the carpet and it's disgusting. As this investigation/review (whatever it is) is funded by us, the taxpayer, we have every right to ask questions and I understand TB's frustration at the amount of money being thrown at this when the answers are all there in the PJ files, staring us in the face.

"The Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to
official information with the intention of making public bodies more
transparent and accountable."

How many houses and how many millions does Tony Blair believe that he has accumulated?

I do not see any real accountability, on his part, for any of his own actions. Quite simply,it does not add up.

Question for TB.
This reply from MPS that you posted on page one was dated 10th February 2014.
Why did you wait until 30th May to post it on here, without the date?
Did you only just receive the reply from them?

How do you know the reply from MPS was dated 10th February 2014?  I can't see any date.

Ladyinred wrote:How do you know the reply from MPS was dated 10th February 2014?  I can't see any date.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/these_questions_relate_to_the_co

AndyB wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:How do you know the reply from MPS was dated 10th February 2014?  I can't see any date.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/these_questions_relate_to_the_co

Thank you.

It looks like Tony was trying to get an answer until the 30 th of May.

lj wrote:It looks like Tony was trying to get an answer until the 30 th of May.

Perhaps it would be better if we waited for Tony to answer for himself rather than guessing as to the reasons?

Ristretto wrote:

lj wrote:It looks like Tony was trying to get an answer until the 30 th of May.

Perhaps it would be better if we waited for Tony to answer for himself rather than guessing as to the reasons?

It is very clear from the page, where the poster who asked the question found this date, that there was correspondence going on until May 30th. I don't think Tony will mind me stating the obvious. You don't have to read my posts, please feel free to skip them. You don't have the right however to tell me what to post, as long as I am within the rules of conduct.

It is becoming a bit pathetic this "let's get Tony" thing. Rather immature. 

No doubt I'll be in the cross-hairs next, although I get the impression I already am.

The dam is about to break between Crimewatch / Senior Corrupt Police / Savile/ BBC media/ Govt / Paedophilia
And it is too far gone to stop now, no matter how many people they try and top off imo. Thousands of people are understanding and joining the dots daily.

The question is will people be able to handle it on any level, or will there be torching of buildings and blood flowing when the light suddenly dawns on them how they are despised as fools.

When a certain curly redhead predicted this at Leveson, she wasn't joking around and knew that sentence of hers would go down in history books for generations IMO.

The human collaterol like young wannabe actresses and models who got caught up in things for a caper or simply out of needing a few quid, will be the downfall of a lot of them I'd wager. From Profumo to today, the cast hasn't changed very much.

How much gets exposed when Phil or Queenie pops will be the telling (and tipping point) one suspects.
How old is Giscard le frog now btw?

lj wrote:

It is becoming a bit pathetic this "let's get Tony" thing. Rather immature. 

@ lj - yes, it has been noted.

'russiandoll' was already crossed off my Christmas card list some time ago.

I've now deleted 'dantezebu' from that list as well

Tony Bennett wrote:

lj wrote:

It is becoming a bit pathetic this "let's get Tony" thing. Rather immature. 

@ lj - yes, it has been noted.

'russiandoll' was already crossed off my Christmas card list some time ago.

I've now deleted 'dantezebu' from that list as well

Well that didn't take much. It was an honest question.  You didn't note my post in support of you earlier in the thread.
Just as well I don't do Christmas cards.