New DCI

Tony Bennett wrote:




 
@ Joss

You wrote:  "...who cares if she paints her nails or what she wears as long as she looks presentable and acts professionally in the workplace and does the job she is meant to do and does what she gets paid for?"

REPLY: Joss, she is getting paid for carrying out the remit. The job that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, and those above him in the Met and the government, is the job that DCI Wall has been instructed to carry out. I do not mean to be unkind, but to believe otherwise is just deluding yourself and going right against all the evidence we have before our very eyes. You hope for an outcome that all the indications suggest is not going to be possible  

PeterMac wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:
J K Rowling arrives in Praia da Luz to work on her latest novel?

Uncanny ! !
" />


Harry Potter and the Fraudulent Fund ?
Harry Potter and the Curious Incident of the dogs in the night-time

PeterMac wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:
J K Rowling arrives in Praia da Luz to work on her latest novel?

Uncanny ! !
" />


Harry Potter and the Fraudulent Fund ?
Harry Potter and the Curious Incident of the dogs in the night-time

Gaggzy wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:
J K Rowling arrives in Praia da Luz to work on her latest novel?

Uncanny ! !
" />


Harry Potter and the Fraudulent Fund ?
Harry Potter and the Curious Incident of the dogs in the night-time

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's No Stone left unturned

Harry Potter and the so far 36,000 Suspects bar 9

Harry Potter and ... oh let's blame it on HagridMan - he looks like a dodgy bugger!

@Tony Bennett wrote:
I wrote:    I can understand your wariness when members are clearly disrupting. However, I personally feel that the main posters here have missed the mark with certain posters. The shame in that is there could have been/be some very valuable discussion if the main posters/researchers/ moderators were not so elitist. Missed opportunities to explore and help sort out what really happened to Madeleine which is what this forum is supposed to be striving for.


YOU REPLYED:  Here are your allegations:

Allegations, no, only my opinions, you really are being defensive!  Which is exactly where the mark is missed again, just because my opinions differ than yours, it seems, you seem to want to discredit me.


1. That 'the main posters' here have 'missed the mark' with certain posters

2. 'Valuable discussion' has been lost because of this

3. The main posters AND the main researchers AND the Moderators AND the forum-owner are all 'elitist'

4. There have been missed opportunities to 'sort out' what really happened to Madeleine

5. Therefore the forum is not doing what it is supposed to be striving for.

That is quite a set of complaints about those who manage and contribute most often to the forum.

Not complaints, merely observations some of which other members have mentioned, from time to time, as a concern also.
By the way, I don't even know who the forum owner is nor do I care and I did not mention forum owner.  I also did not mention "too elitist". It is also my opinion, that you took what I did say out of context.  I merely meant that occasionally members get dismissed at the drop of a hat that may have valuable imput...  Geesh, what's up with you?

I reject each and every one of those allegations.

Reject all you'd like, I stand by my feelings and find it absurd and childish of you to call me out for absolutely no reason.

The continual rise of the numbers visiting the forum - tens of thousands every day - testifies against your allegations.

As does the number of new members joining - another 1,000 this year.

And the numbers of members regularly contributing - hundreds.

Here's one simple question for you. Please name me one specific topic that you suggest has not been properly discussed on here because the forum is 'too elitist'. Just one.

Wow, sounding a bit peremptory Tony (words related to elitist according to you).

I wrote that personally (in relationship to myself), I feel this way since when I joined I was not welcomed and my posts have basically been ignored since (surely not a coincidence).   Most likely because I stated different views than the majority of main posters/members. In a sense, ignoring others because they may have different (views, intellect, what have you) can be considered elitist behavior and that is what I was alluding to. That does not indicate, nor do I feel, that in general I think the mark has been missed on this forum or that the majority of the main posters/members (including yourself) are not doing a wonderful service to Madeleine for the most part.


Finally, the Merriam-Webster definition of 'elitist':

Tsk, tsk, tsk!  You, Tony Bennett, are being very defensive and condescending.  Surely, this is most unbecoming of a man with your intellect.

QUOTE

being or characteristic of a person who has an offensive air of superiority and tends to ignore or disdain anyone regarded as inferior

Example:   < the complacent, elitist attitude of the members at that suburban country club >

Synonyms aristocratic, elitist, high-hat, pernickety, potty, ritzy, snobby, snooty, snotty, toffee-nosed [chiefly British]

Related Words aloof, arrogant, bumptious, haughty, high-and-mighty, highfalutin (also hifalutin), high-handed, hoity-toity, huffish, huffy, imperious, lordly, overweening, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, supercilious, superior, toplofty (also topliftical), uppity; biggety (or biggity) [Southern & Midland], bigheaded, egoistic (also egoistical), egotistic (or egotistical), prideful, self-conceited, self-important, self-satisfied, smug, stuck-up, swelled-headed, swellheaded

UNQUOTE

But thanks for pointing out the offensive air and the related words, many of which certainly pertain to portions of your very own reply. I was actually hoping you would have a more genuinely inquisitive, understanding or kinder attitude but was afraid you'd go defensive...

Merry Christmas to all and I wish you a peaceful New Year!

"Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

aiyoyo wrote:
But why would they stupidly announce in the remit they were going in with a closed mind? It does not make sense.

Because the official script says that Madeleine was abducted - and from Rebekeh Brooks down to David Cameron down to Andy Redwood and Nicola Wall and down to the British public, everyone is expected to believe that

If whitewash is the agenda they wouldn't want that known surely?

On the contrary, if the official script says that Madeleine was abducted and that from Rebekeh Brooks down to David Cameron down to Andy Redwood and Nicola Wall and down to the British public, everyone is expected to believe that, then it makes total - 100% - sense to say: "Our remit is to investigate the abduction".

Who has challenged this remit?

The Members of the Metropolitan Police Committee? - NO

The Independent Police Complaints Commission? - NO

Andy Redwood? - NO

Nicola Wall? - NO

Anyone else apart from a few dozen people expressing their opinions on Madeleine McCann discussion forums? - NO

jeanmonroe wrote:"as if THE abduction occurred in the UK"

No ifs, NO buts .........................THE 'abduction'

Dee Coy wrote:I agree, aiyoyo.

In addition, I don't understand where the assumption that DCI Wall has accepted the same remit as described at the beginning of the review has come from.

Since then, the review has turned into an investigation which has uncovered who-knows-what? They've brought in a leading homicide officer to take over from Redwood. That doesn't mean we're not looking at a whitewash (I am so cynical about what goes on in this country I still think we are) but it is wrong to say Wall definitely is looking to find an abductor of a body, alive or dead, because we simply don't know that that is still the same remit.

They are hardly going to come out and tell the true perpetrators they are now looking for evidence which points to them. They won't announce anything publicly at all until the end.

ultimaThule wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Gaggzy wrote:
J K Rowling arrives in Praia da Luz to work on her latest novel?

Uncanny ! !
" />


Harry Potter and the Fraudulent Fund ?
Harry Potter and the Curious Incident of the dogs in the night-time

Harry Potter and the Smelly Renault Scenic
Harry Potter and the Shocking Pink Bedroom
Harry Potter and the Rothley Towers Urn

Feliz Navidad, PeterM  -  I'll be raising the customary glass to my family's war heroes and will raise another to your Uncle Brian. .

Elça Craig wrote:Aiyoyo
'Look at the McCanns story, to prove it the MET Police would have to come up with "the abductor". Failing that, the abduction story does not hold water.'

(Erm, I'm still hacking around trying to find out how the forum software works, got snafooed again.)

Basically, I would agree with the gist of what you said, until you get to the point above.  The investigations to date have not come up with proof of anything, but clearly something untoward happened.  I don't see how SY can disprove an abductor unless they can prove an alternative. 

Not finding an abductor, if that is all you do, does not prove there is no abductor, merely that you didn't find the abductor.

We appear to hacking around on the proof-of-innocence concept v proof-of-guilt.

Elça Craig wrote:Aiyoyo
'Look at the McCanns story, to prove it the MET Police would have to come up with "the abductor". Failing that, the abduction story does not hold water.'

(Erm, I'm still hacking around trying to find out how the forum software works, got snafooed again.)

Basically, I would agree with the gist of what you said, until you get to the point above.  The investigations to date have not come up with proof of anything, but clearly something untoward happened.  I don't see how SY can disprove an abductor unless they can prove an alternative. 

Not finding an abductor, if that is all you do, does not prove there is no abductor, merely that you didn't find the abductor.

We appear to hacking around on the proof-of-innocence concept v proof-of-guilt.

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:
It all comes down to the remit and for a convenient whitewash, it could be said "we've looked around, it was definitely an abduction but after extensive investigation we don't know who the abductor is at this stage".

That is the bit I still have a problem with.
"We have looked around, and it was definitely an abduction.
The perp came in through the window, oh sorry, I meant the front door, oh no, the official version is the unlocked patio door, whilst Gerry and Jez were standing outside in the road, or probably just a few minutes after he left, and after Jez had schlepped around some more and gone out of the immediate area, and just before Tanner came past on her way back and before OB went to do his check and came back, . .
but sometime in that huge window of opportunity anyway.
We then think he went in, probably wearing surgical gloves and forensic scientists shoe covers, since no prints or marks were found, and administered sedative to all three children.   We are convinced this was a substance hitherto unknown to medical science, so we can't tell you what it was.
But Madeleine was a very special girl, everyone says so, and she was resistant to it, and screamed, though no one heard her, obviously, so he killed her, and then put her body behind the sofa, before moving it to the shelf in the wardrobe in the parent's room, whilst he hid for the next check, which he knew was timed for 5 minutes later, because as Kate said, he had been making notes, even though it had never been done at any time in the week leading up to this. .
And then, when the coast was clear, in the few minutes available to him, he took her away, again through the patio doors, and down the stairs, just in time to miss Kate, . . .


I am not sure if the Det Supt and Ch Supt are going to accept that.

It might just be dismissed as a load of
" />