CEOPS

by **PeterMac** 26.06.15 18:13

Trying to keep this away from the acrimony about the page . . .

The fact remains that either way CEOPS got involved VERY early on.
Why ?
Their role is On-line exploitation, paedo*****, and so on
Not missing children.

About CEOP

What We Do

The NCA's CEOP Command (formerly the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) works with child protection partners across the UK and overseas to identify the main threats to children and coordinates activity against these threats to bring offenders to account. We protect children from harm online and offline, directly through NCA led operations and in partnership with local and international agencies.

Nothing about looking for missing children.
And does this cast any light on the CATS folder in Gerry's name.
I sincerely hope not, but are there any sensible explanations

by whodunnit 26.06.15 18:50

Agreed about the mandate of CEOP, nothing to do with missing kids. and while in all frankness I do not know that much about Gamble personally, imo his view that consumers of child prOn should be given a 'police caution' rather than prison is discrediting of his character on it's face.

Child
Exploitation and
ONLINE
Protection

How does a person who heads such an organization not know that viewers of child prOn are PERPETUATING child trafficking and sex abuse by keeping the demand high? The consumers of this vile filth are ground zero in the fight against pedophilia in all it's despicable forms. Put the squeeze on them and the whole evil edifice falls down.

The very idea that Gamble wants to show these people leniency, and thus exposing a definite 'hands off' policy regarding child pron which is by FAR the very basis for nearly 100% of child trafficking and prostitution, [profits from these materials soar into the stratosphere, outstripping profits from illegal guns and drugs combined, thus proving why 'prominent' members of the Establishment may/nay ARE involved] exposes him, rightly, to charges he may be the last person who should be in charge of any form of child protection.

by Richard IV 26.06.15 19:04

Why. I don`t rightly know but have my suspicions.

It may have been different before they were placed under the NCA umbrella. It seems now they are more involved in on-line stuff, such as the exchange of illegal images (or even provocative images; I believe there is a market for these - just to titillate.

Again I ask WHY or how did JG know for sure that the McCanns weren`t guilty so soon after the event - even giving them CEOP manuals and later selecting GM to be guest of honour at their get together. A man in his position would never `take sides` surely, especially so soon after the event.

by Guest 26.06.15 20:34

PeterMac wrote:Trying to keep this away from the acrimony about the page . . .

The fact remains that either way CEOPS got involved VERY early on.
Why ?
Their role is On-line exploitation, paedo*****, and so on
Not missing children.
About CEOP

What We Do

The NCA's CEOP Command (formerly the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) works with child protection partners across the UK and overseas to identify the main threats to children and coordinates activity against these threats to bring offenders to account. We protect children from harm online and offline, directly through NCA led operations and in partnership with local and international agencies.
Nothing about looking for missing children.
And does this cast any light on the CATS folder in Gerry's name.
I sincerely hope not, but are there any sensible explanations

A long since outstanding question to which I've yet to see a tangible answer. It has been suggested in the past that their prompt involvement was because of suspected (by whom other than the parents and their friends I ask myself) abduction by a paedophile gang but as there is absolutely no evidence of abduction, let alone by a paedophile gang, I find the idea extremely unlikely.

Don't forget there is also an empty CATS file in the name of Kate McCann ???

Equally curious IMO - the CEOP involvement must have been sanctioned by UK authorities, otherwise their presence would have been swiftly withdrawn and Gamble would have disappeared into the woodwork the and there. Instead to this day he openly supports the McCanns, even during the period when they were arguidos.

by Guest 26.06.15 20:49

Richard IV wrote:Why. I don`t rightly know but have my suspicions.

It may have been different before they were placed under the NCA umbrella. It seems now they are more involved in on-line stuff, such as the exchange of illegal images (or even provocative images; I believe there is a market for these - just to titillate.

Again I ask WHY or how did JG know for sure that the McCanns weren`t guilty so soon after the event - even giving them CEOP manuals and later selecting GM to be guest of honour at their get together. A man in his position would never `take sides` surely, especially so soon after the event.

For the same reason that Kennedy knew they were innocent after only a few seconds talking to them?

Over the months/years, Gamble has shown himself to be extremely unprofessional so nothing much surprises me where he's concerned. What does however astound me is why he's been allowed the freedom to openly support the McCanns, irrespective of the very fact that they were (and effectively still are) the prime suspects in the disappearance of their own child.

Someone in authority should be asking questions but as the CEOP was clearly authorized by the UK establishment to be heavily involved, somehow I don't think that will ever happen. So the question remains - WHY? The UK authorities have put themselves in an extremely embarrassing and potentially explosive situation with this case but thanks to Dr Amaral and other active individuals they aren't going to be allowed to forget it, even if they continue to get away with it.

by Guest 26.06.15 21:02

whodunnit wrote:Agreed about the mandate of CEOP, nothing to do with missing kids. and while in all frankness I do not know that much about Gamble personally, imo his view that consumers of child prOn should be given a 'police caution' rather than prison is discrediting of his character on it's face.

Child
Exploitation and
ONLINE
Protection

How does a person who heads such an organization not know that viewers of child prOn are PERPETUATING child trafficking and sex abuse by keeping the demand high? The consumers of this vile filth are ground zero in the fight against pedophilia in all it's despicable forms. Put the squeeze on them and the whole evil edifice falls down.

The very idea that Gamble wants to show these people leniency, and thus exposing a definite 'hands off' policy regarding child pron which is by FAR the very basis for nearly 100% of child trafficking and prostitution, [profits from these materials soar into the stratosphere, outstripping profits from illegal guns and drugs combined, thus proving why 'prominent' members of the Establishment may/nay ARE involved] exposes him, rightly, to charges he may be the last person who should be in charge of any form of child protection.

Sorry to say but since this business of widespread child abuse has been exposed it has highlighted and brought into question the many organizations that have been created to protect children are indeed the very establishments that have been at the core of child abuse - gatekeepers so to speak.

Over the months it has become apparent that individuals and organizations assigned to fight the problem are responsible for exacerbating the problem by subtle (so they think) changes to the degree of acceptance - like early sex education in schools, lowering of the age of consent and changing attitudes towards child sexualization. Much of which horrifies the average parent even by modern standards but nonetheless, like so many other aspects of our lives, totally out of our control.

by HelenMeg 26.06.15 21:08

Connections mus have played a part. CEOPS were able to come on board because the paedophilia angle was immediately pushed. I think it was pushed deliberately in order
to enable CEOP to become involved. Whoever this case is really about, whoever has been protected from Day 1, felt it advantageous to have Jim Gamble CEOP involved. CEOP could have a major influence on how the investigation proceeded and also get to know vital information about the investigation. It was a deliberate step to get them involved - hence the big push on paedophilia.IMO

by Richard IV 26.06.15 21:14

Unless it was a pre-planned sting operation organised by CEOP that went wrong.

There was this going on around that time.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 26.06.15 23:35

Richard IV wrote:Unless it was a pre-planned sting operation organised by CEOP that went wrong.

There was this going on around that time.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Aha, very interesting I thank you! A very interesting date also - June 2007?

I'm reluctant to say exactly what I'm thinking (not the only one I'm sure) for obvious reasons, suffice to throw a few words out there to help connect the dots: CEOP + Jim Gamble + G & K McCann + empty CATS files + Gaspar + Payne + Yvonne Martin . . . . . . must stop there.

Admin/mods, if inappropriate please delete.

by Guest 27.06.15 0:45

Not sure where to post this as I'm crossing boundaries but will stick it here so as not to disrupt the flow of expert input. Forgive me because I frankly haven't a clue what I'm talking about but being of an inquisitive disposition I have been wondering why Madeleine McCann was reported missing on the CEOP website in the first place. Was that usual during that particular period in time? Now if you check their website for missing children it directs you to:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A quick search on the above for Madeleine McCann turned up this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I pasted this link into the Wayback Machine search and voila!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Saved 1 time on June 23, 2013 but no other information - eh???

by whodunnit 27.06.15 17:18

Steve Marsden just made a good point on FB: "CEOP made the appeal for people to send in their holiday snaps. The reason is obvious. They wanted to know if Madeleine was missing in snaps after May 1.

Just the fact that CEOP had no business diverting potential evidence away from the investigation is reason enough to suspect them of having nefarious motives. Truly, what right did they have? By what authority did they collect potentially crucial evidence from the public? Where are the snaps they collected, anyhow? Is there any proof they ever made it to the PJ?

by **PeterMac** 27.06.15 17:29

whodunnit wrote:Steve Marsden just made a good point on FB: "CEOP made the appeal for people to send in their holiday snaps. The reason is obvious. They wanted to know if Madeleine was missing in snaps after May 1. Do you mean PRESENT ?

Just the fact that CEOP had no business diverting potential evidence away from the investigation is reason enough to suspect them of having nefarious motives. Truly, what right did they have? By what authority did they collect potentially crucial evidence from the public? Where are the snaps they collected, anyhow? Is there any proof they ever made it to the PJ?

If they collected even a single photo and did not hand it over to the POJ they have committed a very serious offence.

by whodunnit 27.06.15 18:07

Yes, I think Steve believes CEOP wanted possession of all snaps in which MM should have been present but wasn't. Perhaps collecting all snaps which clearly depicted any little identifiable girls who looked like but were demonstrably NOT MM might have been another objective.

by Guest 27.06.15 18:20

Sorry, maybe the heat is affecting me, but I don't understand the first sentence in your post above. Can you explain, please?

by whodunnit 27.06.15 18:37

Sorry, that was rather convoluted. blushing1

I was responding to PM's comment in blue, inserted into the quote of my earlier comment, namely 'Do you mean PRESENT?'

I was taking a guess as to what Steve Marsden was getting at, what he believed was the purpose of CEOP collecting photos from the public.

In other words, i wonder if there are pics of the family/Tapas that prove MM wasn't present when and where she should have been? Claims were made by the family/tapas/nannies that MM participated in certain activities at certain times after May 1 but photos sent in from the public may prove she was nowhere to be seen. Photos taken inside her CRECHE on certain days would be of particular interest.

Does that help? gosh, I can't seem to organize my thoughts. The heat is definitely getting to me.

by Syn 27.06.15 19:13

whodunnit wrote:Sorry, that was rather convoluted. I was responding to PM's comment in blue, inserted into the quote of my earlier comment, namely 'Do you mean PRESENT?'

I was taking a guess as to what Steve Marsden was getting at, what he believed was the purpose of CEOP collecting photos from the public.

In other words, i wonder if there are pics of the family/Tapas that prove MM wasn't present when and where she should have been? Claims were made by the family/tapas/nannies that MM participated in certain activities at certain times after May 1 but photos sent in from the public may prove she was nowhere to be seen. Photos taken inside her CRECHE on certain days would be of particular interest.

Does that help? gosh, I can't seem to organize my thoughts. The heat is definitely getting to me.

Sooo people upload their pics and CEOP scrutinise them for Maddie and dispose of any incriminating ones. Riggghht. Did they also ask people to send in the memory cards that held the images or ask people to delete any images they scanned onto hard disks and from memory cards after uploading them to CEOP?? Guess they must have done eh? Couldn't risk Aunty Doris spotting little Madeleine one day years later when she is sat at her computer showing her niece Myrtle all her scanned in/downloaded holiday snaps from her holiday in PDL in 2007.....

Think about it.

by Joannep43 27.06.15 19:16

It doesn't matter that people have kept holiday snaps at that time.They are useless unless you know what is being looked for on them?

by Richard IV 27.06.15 19:21

PeterMac wrote:
whodunnit wrote:Steve Marsden just made a good point on FB: "CEOP made the appeal for people to send in their holiday snaps. The reason is obvious. They wanted to know if Madeleine was missing in snaps after May 1. Do you mean PRESENT ?

Just the fact that CEOP had no business diverting potential evidence away from the investigation is reason enough to suspect them of having nefarious motives. Truly, what right did they have? By what authority did they collect potentially crucial evidence from the public? Where are the snaps they collected, anyhow? Is there any proof they ever made it to the PJ?

If they collected even a single photo and did not hand it over to the POJ they have committed a very serious offence.

Don`t know if GA was referring particularly to CEOP here, but

"
"They wanted to fill us with sightings"

Having been removed from the case after controversial statements about his British counterparts, Gonçalo Amaral reaffirms his accusations and goes further: "There was information management done by the English police". "A lot was concealed and they wanted to fill us with sightings", he adds.

He offers two examples. The first denunciation associating suspicious behaviour by one of the members of the group of friends that was on holidays in the Algarve, David Payne, was made on the 16th of May 2007, by a doctor, to the British police. "The information arrived in Portugal in October, after I had already left", he recalls.

But if this information arrived several months later, others were never seen. The former PJ recalls that, with the consent from Portuguese authorities, an appeal was made for tourists to send in photos from the day and the night of Maddie's disappearance. The purpose was "to identify anyone suspicious who might appear looking at the family", he says. But despite "much that arrived at the English police, none of those images ever reached us".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by whodunnit 27.06.15 19:22

In this case, I am speculating. My speculation is just as valid as anything else, especially when CEOP had no business whatsoever inserting itself into the official investigation of a missing child by attempting to divert potentially important evidence away from the PJ.

They were not the investigating body, charged with collecting evidence now were they?

Why not ask the public to send these photos to the PJ and helpfully provide an easy way to do this?

I also wonder where is the proof that CEOP ever turned over any photos? Surely the very helpful and concerned public did as they were asked and dutifully sent in any and all holiday photos which might potentially lead to solving one of the most high profile missing child cases ever? Where are these photos?

by Guest 27.06.15 19:24

whodunnit wrote:Sorry, that was rather convoluted. I was responding to PM's comment in blue, inserted into the quote of my earlier comment, namely 'Do you mean PRESENT?'

I was taking a guess as to what Steve Marsden was getting at, what he believed was the purpose of CEOP collecting photos from the public.

In other words, i wonder if there are pics of the family/Tapas that prove MM wasn't present when and where she should have been? Claims were made by the family/tapas/nannies that MM participated in certain activities at certain times after May 1 but photos sent in from the public may prove she was nowhere to be seen. Photos taken inside her CRECHE on certain days would be of particular interest.

Does that help? gosh, I can't seem to organize my thoughts. The heat is definitely getting to me.

Well you've certainly been working hard here over the past few days!

I find CEOP's involvement strange. Did they ever specify why they wanted photos?

by Châtelaine 27.06.15 19:29

@ LadyinRed

IIRC CEOP claimed they had computer availabilities to scan very quickly all such photos for face-recognition.

by mysterion 27.06.15 19:34

Could be completely wrong but I seem to recall Gerry asking for photos to be sent to them. Didn`t strike me as being odd THEN.

by Guest 27.06.15 19:37

@Chatelaine, thanks. So CEOP were looking for MBM in th e photos and then what, I wonder.

by Joannep43 27.06.15 20:11

I don't know a lot about Ceop but by I read that in their press release 2010 Ceop "The Way Forward" their aim was to take the lead in missing children either abducted or runaways.I know that this is not from 2007 obviously but I do have a point I'm coming to.I had a look at the children missing on their" missingkids "website after there had been a query elsewhere about a 12 year old boy listed as missing.What I have noticed is that some of the children listed ,there is no police force looking for them.What I have also noticed is there have been no appeals,from local police or media outlets.Apart from appeals on Facebook or Twitter but not from the local forces where these children have gone missing from.Now forgive me if I'm sounding stupid as I really don't understand how ceopsworks.I always thought that the police had to be informed if a vulnerable child was missing.So do families,carers, or foster carers go direct to Ceop and not the police ?Im just wondering as I believed working in partnership with other agencies was the correct approach.Can anyone explain ?

by teabag 27.06.15 20:43

Perhaps rather than looking to see if Madeleine was on any of the photos, rather they were looking to ascertain if somebody who shouldn't have been/not known to have been there, was inadvertently caught.

by Guest 27.06.15 21:06

Ladyinred wrote:
whodunnit wrote:Sorry, that was rather convoluted. I was responding to PM's comment in blue, inserted into the quote of my earlier comment, namely 'Do you mean PRESENT?'

I was taking a guess as to what Steve Marsden was getting at, what he believed was the purpose of CEOP collecting photos from the public.

In other words, i wonder if there are pics of the family/Tapas that prove MM wasn't present when and where she should have been? Claims were made by the family/tapas/nannies that MM participated in certain activities at certain times after May 1 but photos sent in from the public may prove she was nowhere to be seen. Photos taken inside her CRECHE on certain days would be of particular interest.

Does that help? gosh, I can't seem to organize my thoughts. The heat is definitely getting to me.
Well you've certainly been working hard here over the past few days!

I find CEOP's involvement strange. Did they ever specify why they wanted photos?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ETA: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.06.15 21:14

Another question yet to be answered - why was Jim Gamble, ex-head of the CEOP, assigned to undertake a review of Madeleine McCanns disappearance?

'The Met has a copy of a review into Madeleine's disappearance completed by Jim Gamble, when he was head of Ceop, the child exploitation and online protection centre. It is understood to recommend that Scotland Yard be brought in to work with the Portuguese police on a review...'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by canada12 27.06.15 22:44

teabag wrote:Perhaps rather than looking to see if Madeleine was on any of the photos, rather they were looking to ascertain if somebody who shouldn't have been/not known to have been there, was inadvertently caught.

That was what I thought immediately, to be honest.

by whodunnit 28.06.15 17:35

teabag wrote:Perhaps rather than looking to see if Madeleine was on any of the photos, rather they were looking to ascertain if somebody who shouldn't have been/not known to have been there, was inadvertently caught.

Excellent point. And maybe? rather like Nixon always claiming the various lone nut assassins were after him too, we know the name of at least one person people who turned over photos which contained images of Madeleine...

Perhaps not strictly on topic but I just learned that Gerry broke the shutters in the parent's bedroom on Sunday the 29th, with a repair order reproduced for the Monday at the top of page 2 of the currently bumped April 30th thread. Isn't it true that the dogs hit on the terrace outside that window?

by willowthewisp 28.06.15 18:08

whodunnit
perhaps he was on a dummy run,Aunty Philomena told us of the "Jemmied shutters"if you look at pictures of the drop from out side of the apartment of that window, the Abductor would barely reach the ground, let alone have hold of a child?