The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Death Threats After Files Published Online

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Death Threats After Files Published Online

Post by sallypelt on 29.01.15 19:47

Survivors of child sex abuse have received death threats after their personal details and confidential communications with an abuse inquiry were published online.

Sky sources claim Home Secretary Theresa May has written to Mr Vaz describing her "dismay" at the Committee's publishing of the documents. The source added Mr Vaz was now in the process of apologising to 18 members of the group.

Full article here:


Posts : 3594
Reputation : 775
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Threats After Files Published Online

Post by Doug D on 29.01.15 21:38

Most names were redacted before publication, but two were missed that should have been redacted, for which Keith Vaz has apparently apologized and rightly so, as this should not have happened. No ‘confidential information’, other than the names, was revealed, but obviously the names should not have been there.
Two other names, now redacted, are in the public domain in any event, having made public statements about the CSA enquiry and both are on youtube ‘Artist Taxi Driver’ interviews under their own names and pictured in their own rights. Again, apart from their names, which anyone with any knowledge of the enquiry shambles knows, nothing confidential was disclosed.
As for the name of the support group that has now been redacted throughout, it is listed on the main CSA website under ‘Support Services’, so Emmerson can hardly blame Sharon for that.
How’s this for a bit of spin:
is unfortunately still unwell’ seems to equate with Sky’s ‘confidential details of a medical condition’ as that has now been redacted also.
Clearly this should not have happened, but I can’t help but think that it is all part of the campaign to get Sharon Evans off the panel, (as of course it would never have happened if she had followed the party line and not talked to the Home Affairs Committee in the first place and been specifically told to keep the committee informed about any repercussions!)
I posted this morning on the Fernbridge thread about Sharon having minuted permission, given ten days after the ‘unauthorised’ C4 news interview, to do a radio interview, suggesting that if the panel were collectively embarrassed by the news interview, there is no way this permission would have been given, but this latest revelation just seems to enhance the anti-Sharon campaign.

Doug D

Posts : 2371
Reputation : 811
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Threats After Files Published Online

Post by Doug D on 30.01.15 9:45

Snips from the Survivors Alliance letters on their web page:
‘The way the panel members have discussed other survivors, specifically Lucy Duckworth, Fay Maxted, Andi Lavery and Ian McFaddyen is a shameful reflection of their lack of responsibility and knowledge of the issues. It has exposed us as individuals, making us feel vulnerable and having a huge impact on our work and organisations.’
‘We call for the termination of Barbara Hearn and Sharon Evan’s contract immediately, ensuring all emails and confidential information are no longer in their possession.’
‘we are encouraged by Ben Emmerson’s correspondence which demonstrate his professionalism and objectivity.’
‘Concerns to date:
▪   Lack of consultation with experts in the survivor field prior to any direct engagement with survivors or planning of events;
▪   Appointment of two chairs with inappropriate links to establishment;
▪   Lack of an open and transparent process in appointing panel members;
▪   Lack of in-depth briefing for panel members on stakeholder groups;
▪   Lack of understanding of safeguarding processes and subsequent training to rectify this;
▪   Inappropriate use of social media and media by Panel members;
▪   Ill-informed and hastily arranged listening events run without safeguarding protocols in place or support on hand for vulnerable individuals;
▪   Breaches of safeguarding protocol by panel members;
▪   Panel member giving misleading information in media interviews about ‘hearing evidence’;
▪   Misleading and confusing statements issued by the Panel regarding trust in a future Inquiry if the Panel is disbanded;
▪   Listening events arranged despite concerns being raised about specific Panel members;
▪   Listening events cancelled at the last minute;
▪   Agencies who are paid to provide support ‘championing’ panel on social media, discussing their views on the inquiry with the media meaning survivors are not getting independent support
▪   Lack of transparency over appointment of agencies who are paid to provide support
▪   Lack of recognition of national service standards and poor consideration for accessibility for those requiring ongoing support from these agencies
▪   Lack of response from the Panel to concerns raised re the above;
▪   Divisions and tensions fuelled and exacerbated between individual survivors and groups by calls for support from Panel members for the Panel and for themselves as Panel members.
Finally, we have been informed by the Secretariat to the Panel that the pace of work and the need for listening events to take place was set by the Home Office.  This itself questions the independence of the Panel if it has no authority to construct its own work programme’
These are supposedly the four ‘names’ revealed in the documents published by the HASC, but the first two, the writers of the letter, are not named anywhere in the documents, although may have been names that were redacted before the initial publication. All four are established campaigners and seem very ready and willing to put themselves in the public domain at any opportunity. Two other 'private' names were initially posted, but have now been redacted.
In my view, there is too much interference to both sides of the argument and I wonder how much is fuelled by people who have no wish for the truth ever to get out there.
I also wonder whether their first concern:
▪   Lack of consultation with experts in the survivor field prior to any direct engagement with survivors or planning of events;
is always going to be a stumbling block, as no doubt all of the many various survivors groups presumably see themselves as ‘the experts’ and no doubt want direct representation on any panel.
The concern regarding ‘calls for support from Panel members for the panel’ makes little sense, as the panel cannot function without such support, so why a concern that they have asked for it? That this support has not been forthcoming and the reasons for this must be the issue.
Theresa May should surely have received the input of a wide range of these groups in the very early ‘working party’ planning stages for the enquiry. If this did not occur, which looks as though it may have been the case, and is backed up by her two suggested ‘Chair’ appointments, no wonder there is so much dissent and why Lavery and McFaddyen are so vociferous in their calls for the present panel to be scrapped and the whole thing started again, with what they consider to be proper representation for the survivors.
‘Confusion is good’ as we have heard before. Keep arguing amongst yourselves and nothing will ever happen. At least it’s got Theresa May off the hook to some extent as nothing much is going to happen this side of the election, or even the next one the way things are going.

Doug D

Posts : 2371
Reputation : 811
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
McCanns apt & hire car

Blood and cadaver alerts
dismissed by UK Government

Retired DCI Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'."

Retired murder DCI Colin Sutton: "I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made public on national TV that Operation Grange is a complete fraud.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Despite "irrelevant behaviour" from blood and cadaver dogs in the McCann's apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes, and in the car they hired three weeks after Maddie disappeared, Ex-Chief Inspector, Ian Horrocks, said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter is frankly preposterous."

Gerry McCann called for example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price. She paid with her life.

Ex-Deputy Chief Constable, Jim Gamble QPM, congratulated SKY reporter, Martin Brunt, on twitter for doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of Gerry McCann.

Prime Minister Theresa May introduces Prime Suspect Kate McCann to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester.

Good Cop Down: The reality of being a police whistleblower