Faith in Op Grange

RogerRabbit wrote:

aquila wrote:Perhaps I'm being naiive but I think of things in simpler terms.

Operation Grange was formed when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, allowed himself to be bullied by Rebekah Brooks into instructing (without any authority!!!) The Metropolitan Police to conduct a review.

Operation Grange's remit is still not questioned by the media or the general public. It is simply accepted that 'Britain's finest' are doing the job 'for one of ours' that the Portuguese police 'bungled' and hence the ridiculous charade began.

It began with the garbled declaration of the parents/T7 not being suspects (absolutely no need whatsoever to state that), it was the parents who asked/demanded for the review in the first place. The parents were backed by the Murdoch media. It went on to say it was to help the parents and the parents were kept regularly updated.

OG then proceeded to do photoshoots of themselves removing files from Metodo3 offices (I mean, really was that necessary?) then they proceeded to Portugal with the commissioning of a helicopter, GPR equipment, snifferdogs etc (and a whole load of media stuff in between).

It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. Even better is to get the Police Federation to start the grumble and then court public opinion within the media that money is better spent elsewhere. It CAN go away. No need for embarrassment on the part of OG, just let it dwindle which is what I suspect (my opinion only) is the grand design.

I've seen no evidence that the world, or it's figures of influence, operate on 'simpler terms.'

Operation Grange was formed by people unknown, for reasons unknown, due to political pressure from sources unknown at the request of unknown.

That's the objective truth.

The rest is a story.

One thing I know for sure… if this were a whitewash, and it was a significant enough issue that a Prime Minister would spend ten million and stake the reputation of himself, the most prestigious police force in the UK, and the intelligence services on their collective ability to cover something up and leave no trace which could be later uncovered and used to embarrass them, there isn't a journalist, newspaper editor or media mogul on earth who would be safe as the agent of force or blackmail, friend or not, if the demand to do such a deed was accompanied with a threat of some form of exposure. People have been killed for less. If you think that someone as utterly dispensable as Rebekah Brooks was single-handedly and for reasons of commercial interest to Rupert Murdoch able to force Cameron into this shambles, then I think you've underestimated the nature of politics. The ability of the Cameron government to preside over giving Brooks and co, and indeed the Murdochs a black eye and a permanently tarnished reputation is proof that this is not the result of Newscorp pressure. Newscorp plays catch-up very quickly, and places bets in order to try to be the first, but they do NOT write the news before it happens.

Until you can rule out that the whole 'Brooks/Cameron' narrative is not simply hogwash designed to amuse the public, you've simply no idea what kind of animal Grange really is.

Operation Grange's 'remit' is known only to the insiders who instigated Grange and those at the top level of running the operation. It is not known whether Grange is an isolated and complete operation, or whether it is merely a compartment, a stage, a component within something larger. The evidence, including the very intricate levels of cooperation with other government departments, possibly intelligence services, prosecutors and numerous departments of the Portuguese authorities, not to mention the massive expenditure, indicate the latter. If it were the former, and the dead end that the operation appears to be reaching were indeed the end goal, then the end goal could have been achieved far sooner, far more cheaply, and without any of the elaborate play-acting. It is not safe to believe that Grange is anything short of a convenient front, and thus it cannot be presumed that any 'remit' has been honestly stated, and that the ends might justify the means in respect of deception.

Operation Grange's supposedly stated remit has been questioned by all kinds of media and all kinds of members of the general public. That these lines of enquiry go unreported, or left as enigmas, is not unusual and most certainly would not be unusual if Grange were, in fact, merely one thread in a multi-threaded pursuit of an end game which needed to be obscured from public scrutiny until a final reveal.

The remit began with nothing less than whatever beginning place the ruse called for, assuming I'm right. It served it's purpose. The theorists and speculators have been hung up on that 'opening statement' ever since, blissfully unaware that it is quite probably the first most successful distraction of the operation, an effective misdirection. Then you have another irrelevant misdirection… that 'the parents' asked for it. Connecting the dots between the parents asking for it and Grange being instituted is erroneous. As erroneous as the idea that Newscorp asking for it would get a ten million pound police operation which would be counter productive and fall foul of the public and MP's alike. Where is the evidence that grieving parents ever get elaborate two year, ten million pound investigations having seized control of the investigation themselves, been caught out in underhand behaviour, failed to cooperate with police investigations and failed to provide a scrap of credible evidence TO investigate? Newspapers that chase pet issues ALWAYS bill themselves as the ones who demanded investigation and then claim credit when the authorities proceed. And as for the McCann's, they couldn't afford NOT to be seen begging for investigations. The scrutiny they're under? They were probably stunned when someone said 'actually, yes, we're going to investigate' and all evidence is that they then proceeded to re-engage the publicity machine in order to try to steer the direction by having the police chase the media, or have the police chased by the media. The whole thing is a PR game, and for my eye, little more.

One other thing is certain. The media does not 'back' anyone. The media curries favour, it attempts to influence, it associates itself wherever it sees the opportunity to sell. And it turns just as quickly. It rarely says 'they fooled us', because it doesn't care about being fooled or not. But it will be the first to change sides at just the right time. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. That's how you stay on top of the news. It's how you get exclusives. The McCann's are valuable for exclusives… If you can't publish something damning about them, then play nice and make sure you get the kind of scoops that only friends would get. For all the support the McCann's had from the Murdoch media, according to you, it didn't stop them biting the hand that fed them with Hacked Off and Leveson.

As for OG photoshoots, police investigators don't do photoshoots. Illusionists do photoshoots. They make you look at what they want you to see. To plant a thought. To send a message. To manipulate a scene. To create a diversion. To simply waste time. To play politics. Helicopters. GPR. Dogs. Personnel. If they did it, it had a purpose. One thing they were not was clueless and inept. If they'd have made a judgement, and attempted a conviction, and HADN'T been seen doing ALL those things, the defence would tear the case apart. Someone will pay for this with their job and their future career if this expenditure is NOT deemed to be serving the public interest.


"It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. "


Ridiculous. They could have killed OG off after six months by stating there was no evidence. The grumbling about Grange isn't coming from the people running Grange, it's coming from the people impatient for results, or anxious to avoid being implicated. It is a provocation, not an epitaph for the Op.


If the purpose was to make Grange go away without any embarrassment or questions, then it has failed big time, and is eighteen months too late. Grange is beyond a point of no return. It is only a matter of time until the reveal.

String wrote:Aquila - Your post flashed up and then was whooshed? How strange? 

plebgate wrote:I hate long posts and I do not have the debating skills either, but it gets my goat when posters use words such as ridiculous when replying to another poster.   Admittedly some posters here have posted things which could be termed ridiculous but it is normally from people who join to cause disruption.   I don't think posters with a proven track record deserve to be replied to in such a manner.

Not expecting a reply but sometimes one has to say something (IMO) of course.

scrants wrote:RogerR,

I second what string has to say.

I must say that the Rebecca Brooks/Cameron thing made me sit up and think "why would Cameron agree so quickly?"  It wasn't an election year and he wasn't after political gain.  The supposed Sun threat to put Theresa May on the front page for a week hardly seems a good reason to agree to pressure.  Theresa May is a big girl and it would have been a 9 day wonder.

I wonder if it was on the cards all the time.  Someone somewhere in government or the police felt that justice in the case would never happen until some steps were taken and advised Cameron accordingly.

Whatever you might think of Cameron's politics, I think he is a decent man and probably really felt it was the right thing to do

scrants wrote:RogerR,

I second what string has to say.

I must say that the Rebecca Brooks/Cameron thing made me sit up and think "why would Cameron agree so quickly?"  It wasn't an election year and he wasn't after political gain.  The supposed Sun threat to put Theresa May on the front page for a week hardly seems a good reason to agree to pressure.  Theresa May is a big girl and it would have been a 9 day wonder.

I wonder if it was on the cards all the time.  Someone somewhere in government or the police felt that justice in the case would never happen until some steps were taken and advised Cameron accordingly.

Whatever you might think of Cameron's politics, I think he is a decent man and probably really felt it was the right thing to do

sharonl wrote: 

That explains a lot. So the world revolves around the Sun?

This is shocking, I can see where Mitchell fits in but where does Gamble fit in? 

Back to 2006/7 when Missing People were failing fast, in need of a boost, Tony Blair was being questioned under caution in relation to the cash for honours scandal and the Murdoch Empire was struggling.

Blair, Mitchell, Gamble and McCann have all in some way linked themselves to that charity.. 

Rebekah Brooks was right when she said to Cameron, "we're all in this together", in what Rebekah?

Bishop Brennan wrote:The title of the thread is "Faith in Operation Grange".   One possible definition of Faith is "to continue to believe in something despite the obvious contradictory evidence that surrounds it".  So do we have faith in OG?  Perhaps we do.   There isn't a single shred of evidence in the past 3 years to suggest that they are doing anything other than what was in the remit.  Not a single shred of evidence to suggest they have even looked at the T9, never mind investigated them.  And plenty of evidence to suggest that SY have been actively exploring the idea of a whitewash or a patsy.

And yet - most of us continue to hope, to believe that somehow, despite what we have seen and not seen in the past 3 years, OG will come through and crack the case.  So I would have to conclude that YES - we all do have faith in Operation Grange.

Bishop Brennan wrote:The title of the thread is "Faith in Operation Grange".   One possible definition of Faith is "to continue to believe in something despite the obvious contradictory evidence that surrounds it".  So do we have faith in OG?  Perhaps we do.   There isn't a single shred of evidence in the past 3 years to suggest that they are doing anything other than what was in the remit.  Not a single shred of evidence to suggest they have even looked at the T9, never mind investigated them.  And plenty of evidence to suggest that SY have been actively exploring the idea of a whitewash or a patsy.

And yet - most of us continue to hope, to believe that somehow, despite what we have seen and not seen in the past 3 years, OG will come through and crack the case.  So I would have to conclude that YES - we all do have faith in Operation Grange.

joyce1938 wrote:I must admit ,that scenario has gone through my mind too ,maybe we have kept the mecs totally informed of some stuff they didn't need to know from us ,pre informed  can  be pre armed ? joyce1938

RogerRabbit wrote:

scrants wrote:RogerR,

I second what string has to say.

I must say that the Rebecca Brooks/Cameron thing made me sit up and think "why would Cameron agree so quickly?"  It wasn't an election year and he wasn't after political gain.  The supposed Sun threat to put Theresa May on the front page for a week hardly seems a good reason to agree to pressure.  Theresa May is a big girl and it would have been a 9 day wonder.

I wonder if it was on the cards all the time.  Someone somewhere in government or the police felt that justice in the case would never happen until some steps were taken and advised Cameron accordingly.

Whatever you might think of Cameron's politics, I think he is a decent man and probably really felt it was the right thing to do

Far more likely is that Brooks was called in to contrive a narrative which made Grange look like a favour to the parents and which set off the cover story that the whole thing accepted their narrative verbatim, and would reinforce it. I think the evidence is that Grange has been turned to the opposite effect. 80% of mass media is about disinformation.

joyce1938 wrote:Hi Aquila,thanks for your reply ,where do I go to fing gerrys blogs ? would like to read .joyce1938

jeanmonroe wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:Hi Aquila,thanks for your reply ,where do I go to fing gerrys blogs ? would like to read .joyce1938

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

Aquila won't 'mind' me 'helping' joyce1938,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I 'hope'

aquila wrote:4 years after Operation Grange was formed and introduced into the mainstream media, not a single thing has been achieved.

Helicopters, GPR equipment, a team from UK digging in PDL, a Crime Watch revelation moment with hitherto unknown massive media pre-announcement, not one Crime Watch production but two, one for the German market, one for the UK market, neither of them anything like the place in which Madeleine was in.

DCI Redwood's team being photographed removing boxes of files from Metodo3 offices.

DCI Redwood telling the UK of his privilege at working on this case.

DCI Redwood retiring after the media extravaganza of his revelation moment.

Nicola Wall, nearing retirement taking up the reins.

Alison Saunders making an appearance in Portugal.

How confident does that make you feel?

RogerRabbit wrote:

aquila wrote:4 years after Operation Grange was formed and introduced into the mainstream media, not a single thing has been achieved.

Helicopters, GPR equipment, a team from UK digging in PDL, a Crime Watch revelation moment with hitherto unknown massive media pre-announcement, not one Crime Watch production but two, one for the German market, one for the UK market, neither of them anything like the place in which Madeleine was in.

DCI Redwood's team being photographed removing boxes of files from Metodo3 offices.

DCI Redwood telling the UK of his privilege at working on this case.

DCI Redwood retiring after the media extravaganza of his revelation moment.

Nicola Wall, nearing retirement taking up the reins.

Alison Saunders making an appearance in Portugal.

How confident does that make you feel?

The only reason to feel disappointed is if, for some strange reason, you were ever convinced by the tabloid gossip. 

Grange can call itself what it likes, and the media can call it what they like. As an isolated investigation it is fundamentally a non-starter. You can TALK about 'taking it back to zero' and you can TALK about investigating a crime as if it happened in the UK, but unless you have jurisdiction it will be nothing but rhetoric. Imagine MI5 stating that because British citizens were killed, they're investigating 9.11 by taking it back to zero and investigating it like it happened in the UK. It would go nowhere. No jurisdiction, and no court in the world will accept that the questioning, the evidence gathering, the investigating has all been done by a foreign force. The only purpose for Grange is in reading between the lines of the supposedly 'disclosed' remit and the actual effect it has had, and finding that the only tangible result has been the exhaustive examination and ruling out of non-starters presented as factual accounts and/or theories of possible narratives offered by the family and their spokespersons and supporters.

The rest, as your contended points above prove, which give you your reason for such doubt and disappointment, is simply set dressing. It's the least trustworthy part of the entire existence of Grange - to believe that the investigation is being conducted to public account, under public scrutiny, to be shared with the public… How many times will you hear the police say 'we don't give a running commentary of the investigation' before you actually start believing that they are playing the media?

No one knows that Grange isn't right on track to deliver a hammer blow that was always intended.

If this is a whitewash, it is not only a pitiable effort, but rather a counterproductive one. If this is intended to close down investigation, then why open an investigation with the purpose of closing it again? Leave it shut. Let sleeping dogs lie. Further, if all the powers that be wanted was a quick review of the case to see if it had legs, that could have been achieved without public consultation, privately, secretly, effectively and efficiently. This, form the beginning, has been all about creating a performance for the public consumption which would ultimately leave the McCann's looking incredibly stupid and somewhat sheepish. Why? If the purpose was to leave them just as exonerated as they were happy to claim to be, why dig up the corpse of a case and then proceed to cast suspicion on them again, as to their involvement?

aquila wrote:The Sun sponsors (not sure if it does now) Police Bravery Awards. According to Rebekah Brooks statement to Leveson Inquiry they had been sponsoring it for 15 years.

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

(Item No. 33 in the above).

Gerry McCann gets standing ovation at Police Bravery Awards.

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


..................................

In 2009 The Sun turns its back on Labour and supports Tories.

...................................

Rebekah Brooks persuades government to open a case review

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

.......................................


Neither Brooks nor Cameron can remember anything specific.

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