"NO STONE WILL BE UNTURNED"

by jeanmonroe 07.07.14 12:01

Dave Cameron press statement, on investigating, child abuse 'claims' by politicians.

Sky News.

"NO STONE WILL BE UNTURNED"

I bet there won't be!

Bit like OG into Madeleine's 'disappearance'

by Smokeandmirrors 07.07.14 12:10

jeanmonroe wrote:Dave Cameron press statement, on investigating, child abuse 'claims' by politicians.

Sky News.

"NO STONE WILL BE UNTURNED"

I bet there won't be!

Bit like OG into Madeleine's 'disappearance'

This phrase is starting to sound ever more like code for something else. I wonder if it means something to the more specific, intended recipient winkwink

by jeanmonroe 07.07.14 12:26

David Cameron has said there would be "no stone unturned" in an independent inquiry into how public bodies had handled child abuse allegations mainly dating back to the 1980s.

NO stone unturned!

Surely he meant NO stone will be LEFT unturned.?

Ah, he's (PM) changed his claim to 'leave no stone unturned'

But still got his earlier 'message' ('NO stone unturned') out to..................?

by lufc50337 07.07.14 12:39

At least he isn't lying for once

by HelenMeg 07.07.14 12:42

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Dave Cameron press statement, on investigating, child abuse 'claims' by politicians.

Sky News.

"NO STONE WILL BE UNTURNED"

I bet there won't be!

Bit like OG into Madeleine's 'disappearance'

This phrase is starting to sound ever more like code for something else. I wonder if it means something to the more specific, intended recipient

Ha ha ha !!! Mrs

At least we know he is speaking the truth - too right . No stone unturned in the search for justice. Crutin

by Claire25 07.07.14 13:13

Sorry I don't normally post (just lurk) but I've wondered about this phrase before and found this thread quite interesting so thought I'd contribute ..

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=226993

by Guest 07.07.14 13:15

Far be it from me to defend David Cameron, but there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be wrong (one hopes) if he had said "no stone will be turned", the opposite is to say "no stone will be unturned", with or without the optional "left" before "unturned".

by Liz Eagles 07.07.14 13:21

Popcorn wrote:Far be it from me to defend David Cameron, but there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be wrong (one hopes) if he had said "no stone will be turned", the opposite is to say "no stone will be unturned", with or without the optional "left" before "unturned".

That's correct Popcorn. Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it. The crying shame is it's bullsh*t. Even Cameron (the PR pro) must know this hackneyed tripe is fooling no-one.

by Guest 07.07.14 13:27

aquila wrote:
Popcorn wrote:Far be it from me to defend David Cameron, but there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be wrong (one hopes) if he had said "no stone will be turned", the opposite is to say "no stone will be unturned", with or without the optional "left" before "unturned".
That's correct Popcorn. Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it. The crying shame is it's bullsh*t. Even Cameron (the PR pro) must know this hackneyed tripe is fooling no-one.

I think that's something we can all agree on Aquila. yes

by Bishop Brennan 07.07.14 13:27

aquila wrote:
Popcorn wrote:Far be it from me to defend David Cameron, but there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be wrong (one hopes) if he had said "no stone will be turned", the opposite is to say "no stone will be unturned", with or without the optional "left" before "unturned".
That's correct Popcorn. Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it. The crying shame is it's bullsh*t. Even Cameron (the PR pro) must know this hackneyed tripe is fooling no-one.

And 3 years of SY work on this case proves that despite an identical claim, many large (one might say elephant-sized) stones remain very much unturned!

by haroldd2 07.07.14 13:33

Popcorn wrote:Far be it from me to defend David Cameron, but there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be wrong (one hopes) if he had said "no stone will be turned", the opposite is to say "no stone will be unturned", with or without the optional "left" before "unturned".

Agreed. "No stone unturned" is synonymous with "no stone left unturned". People are getting carried away.

Same as in a recent post (which I couldn't find) saying that GM had given himself away by saying that he did such and such while believing his daughter "was" alive. Unlike in many other languages, in English reported speech and thoughts don't go into a tense which refers to the viewpoint time as if it were the present. "I thought it was raining" means you thought it was raining at the time you were doing the thinking. In other languages you say "I thought it is raining". Saying "I thought it was raining" doesn't imply that you thought it had stopped raining; it isn't a giveaway or a Freudian slip. Nor is saying "no stone unturned".

As for "stone unturned" containing a message, it's possible - just about. But it's not as clearly a message as Scooter Libby's 2005 cryptic "aspens" reference was! smilie

Just to change perspective...has anyone got any candidates for cryptic references in the MMcC case to a) Elm Guest House or b) anything connected with the royal family? Just askin'.

by worriedmum 07.07.14 13:34

did anyone turn these stones?

"NO STONE WILL BE UNTURNED" MichaelWright_GerryMcCann

by MRNOODLES 07.07.14 13:36

Just seen the clip on Sky News.

Dave says, "Leave no stone unturned".

by Woofer 07.07.14 13:37

Claire25 wrote:Sorry I don't normally post (just lurk) but I've wondered about this phrase before and found this thread quite interesting so thought I'd contribute ..

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=226993

Thanks Claire 25 and welcome welcome

Yes, its interesting that politicians and police use that phrase a lot and the other posters are quite right about them using the words `robustly` and `lessons will be learned` - it must be in vogue at the mo. And yes, it makes me feel sick every time they use them.

by Markus 2 07.07.14 13:38

As we are all concerned on here about child abuse no matter where it comes from. Tom WATSON has a petition online and hopes to have 75, 000 signatures this afternoon when Government child abuse cover up is announced in Parliament . Please remove if not appropriate.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-establish-a-national-inquiry-into-allegations-of-organised-child-abuse

by jeanmonroe 07.07.14 13:51

And still ONLY 140 'honourable' MP's, out of a total of 651 'honourable' MP's have 'signed' a petition demanding a public inquiry into child abuse.

Still, that's ONE more than 48 hours ago!

Which means the FIVE HUNDRED and ELEVEN 'honourable' MP's have NOT signed the petition!

"You 'avin a laff?"

The NON 'signers' do know THEIR NAMES will be 'exposed' in the very near future, right?

Local constituent to MP: "Why didn't YOU sign the petition for an inquiry into child abuse"?

"Erm, er, my senior colleague had a word in my ear and told me not to?"

"Pervert!"

"Still gonna vote for my seat on the Westminister gravy train, next year, aren't you?"

"Fcuking PERVERT!"

"I'll take that as a no, then"

by Guest 07.07.14 13:59

Markus 2 wrote:As we are all concerned on here about child abuse no matter where it comes from. Tom WATSON has a petition online and hopes to have 75, 000 signatures this afternoon when Government child abuse cover up is announced in Parliament . Please remove if not appropriate.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-establish-a-national-inquiry-into-allegations-of-organised-child-abuse

It has now romped past that figure, but the more the merrier!

by Markus 2 07.07.14 14:04

Popcorn wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:As we are all concerned on here about child abuse no matter where it comes from. Tom WATSON has a petition online and hopes to have 75, 000 signatures this afternoon when Government child abuse cover up is announced in Parliament . Please remove if not appropriate.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-establish-a-national-inquiry-into-allegations-of-organised-child-abuse

It has now romped past that figure, but the more the merrier!

A million would be nice for starters . It is about time these so called elite are outed . They have the upper hand on all of us, it is time for change.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.07.14 14:05

Some of you guys need to step away from the computer. You are placing significance in the smallest, insignificant of things.

If you want to see where CAMERON stands on all this refer to the video where Phillip SCHOFIELD hands him a list of 'alleged' pedophiles. CAMERON looks legitimately worried.

by Dont Make Me Laff 07.07.14 14:15

worriedmum wrote:did anyone turn these stones?

Is that Gerry sporting a mobile phone AND a watch?

by Dont Make Me Laff 07.07.14 14:18

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:Some of you guys need to step away from the computer. You are placing significance in the smallest, insignificant of things.

If you want to see where CAMERON stands on all this refer to the video where Phillip SCHOFIELD hands him a list of 'alleged' pedophiles. CAMERON looks legitimately worried.

Philip Schofield asked him a simple Direct question and still DC can NOT give a Direct answer... what is wrong with people that they have to have the verbal trots?

by Cristobell 07.07.14 14:21

We shall see just how sincere these MP's are. Two years ago, I sent Tom Watson copious details about Peter Rands, a known paedophile who worked in a catholic children's home in Orpington, who regularly took his favourite boys on day trips to London - he also took some of them to the Vatican. I even sent Tom Watson a picture of Peter Rands with a young boy outside No.10 Downing Street. Neither he, nor any of the investigators have ever got back to me.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.07.14 14:31

I think the fact less than 25% of MP's have signed for a public inquiry into child abuse tells its own story.

by Markus 2 07.07.14 15:03

Cristobell wrote:We shall see just how sincere these MP's are. Two years ago, I sent Tom Watson copious details about Peter Rands, a known paedophile who worked in a catholic children's home in Orpington, who regularly took his favourite boys on day trips to London - he also took some of them to the Vatican. I even sent Tom Watson a picture of Peter Rands with a young boy outside No.10 Downing Street. Neither he, nor any of the investigators have ever got back to me.

Let us hope he was saving it all to come out in one swoop ,I think things are moving ,never got to the papers before. Every little bit no matter if it seems to get nowhere it informs another person .

by jeanmonroe 07.07.14 15:31

Just BEFORE the HS, Theresa May, who is allocating unlimited UK taxpayers money to OG, stands up and gives her statement on, 'child (sex) abuse in public life'

How many 'times' will the name Madeleine McCann 'come up/ be mentioned' in 'debate'?

Given that Maajid Nawaz, the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn has stated. publicly on BBC tv, that ' the Madeleine McCann case, alongside Milly Dowler, (who he called Milly McCann), are both child abuse cases,'

Will elected MP's, also state today, in the Common's chamber, that the Madeleine McCann 'case' is one of child (sex) abuse?

I'm all ears!

(i'm going for 10-11 'mentions')

And we're off!