Faith in Op Grange

RogerRabbit wrote:

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.]

The Sun has nothing to do with anything.

Newscorp sponsor a million and one things. For commercial interest. Keeping the police onside is always valuable when (a) a lot of them are the profile demographic for reading The Sun and (b) you're known for bunging them a few quid for valuable information.

They'd sponsor the opening of a celebrity's bowels if they thought it would get a circulation or a scoop.

They 'switched side' from Labour to the Tories, not because they were so powerful as to change the course of British democracy, but because they saw the tide turn and have a pathological need to hype their hyper-reactive pragmatism to such a degree as to claim to be newsmakers, not news reporters. The whole aura around Murdoch is one of mythology. When he dies, it ends. And that could be, literally, tomorrow. It's all bull. Braggadocio.

And how on earth would you even know what, allegedly, has been discussed by Cameron and Brooks, unless they told you what they wanted you to hear, or the media reported to you what they want you to believe. You're certainly convinced that neither Cameron, nor Brooks, nor the media can be trusted at all to tell the truth and behave with integrity, and yet somehow you're believing exactly what one or all of them might say and holding them to account for it… Cameron denied pressure. Brooks denied pressure. Leveson insisted pressure took place. Yet Leveson has done more to kill press freedom in this country than anything else. I wouldn't trust Leveson. Would you?

And to be fair, why wouldn't a media giant which has cynically secured exclusives with the principal characters in the crime of the century want to do everything it can to ensure the justifiable continuation of massive and relevant media hype on the case. They couldn't persuade the PJ to keep it going. Yet they manage to latch on to the Mc's insisting that SY overstep their jurisdiction and launch an unsustainable and pointless review, when the Mc's won't even lift a finger to make a call to ask the PJ to proceed? You already believe that the Mc's have good reason to not re-engage the PJ, and that they were initially unafraid of a SY review because of their confidence in the nullification of any evidence against them, and that their 'calling' for a review was a cynical, lying move? So why would it be so certain that Newscorp were helping to cover the matter up by making it front page news, rather than effectively trying to call the McCann's bluff and force them into turning the call for investigation into more than lip service?

It really doesn't matter what you believe, but do be careful when you present all these reasons for claiming that Grange is corrupt, that you actually present factual justifications, and not simply the fact that your possibly inaccurate and misguided preconceptions, interpretations, expectations and perceptions have been disappointed. Maybe you're just reading things in an inconsistent or flawed way.

Thank you for your advice. I'm not sure why my opinion has been singled out as to be personalized. Let's just say my opinion differs greatly from yours.

aquila wrote:Summers and Swan write what they promote as 'the definitive book'. They quote having had a meeting with DCI Redwood.

How many authors would be granted an audience with Operation Grange?

Summers and Swan's book was promoted by Jim Gamble and Martin Brunt of Sky News.

Brenda Leyland was subsequently savaged.

You failed to comment on what DCI Redwood said to them. Or just as importantly, what they said to DCI Redwood.

As I understand it, it would be entirely common practice to extend an engagement to an investigative journalist who announced that they had leads they were following on an active case, with a view to publishing an already contracted piece of work. This was not a reporter from the Truro Herald. This was a published author. I doubt they were asking permission to write a book. I doubt they said 'we'd like to write about what you have, but until you tell us what it is, we have nothing and there won't be a book.' Police officers are not generally noted for their psychic abilities. It would not be unusual to arrange a meeting in order to get a picture of what these writers actually have, what their angle is, where they're coming from. Neither side would be likely to discuss that by phone. Both would want to be in a controlled situation.

And what did DCI Redwood tell them? Certainly they went ahead and published claims and pertinent details that Redwood - within a matter of very little time at all - would be publicly refuting BEFORE the publication of the book took place. Did he tell them 'all the available evidence is right here' and hand them a dossier marked 'Grange: Top Secret'. Or did he send them in the direction of an internet document marked 'Portuguese Case Files: Release To Public.'

Have you studied how many lies and misrepresentations and fabrications and fallacies are in that book? Why would you believe what Summers and Swan say about anything? Their encounters? Their discussions? Their research sources?

You're connecting so many dots, and they don't really need connecting.

What you're ending up with is a conspiracy staffed by camp arch-villains whose villainy is obvious by the cat that they hold and the extension of a pinky, and their sneer. They all work from a secret lair which is marked on Google Maps using the term 'Secret Lair of Villainy.' They've got a secret plan drawn on a blueprint which is secret but has been posted on the internet for easy download. They're having secret meetings at which they arrive in a limousine having tipped off the press in advance, and pause for a moment outside a neon-bedecked hotel in the busiest part of town, for a photographic record of their presence….

RogerRabbit wrote:

aquila wrote:Summers and Swan write what they promote as 'the definitive book'. They quote having had a meeting with DCI Redwood.

How many authors would be granted an audience with Operation Grange?

Summers and Swan's book was promoted by Jim Gamble and Martin Brunt of Sky News.

Brenda Leyland was subsequently savaged.

You failed to comment on what DCI Redwood said to them. Or just as importantly, what they said to DCI Redwood.

As I understand it, it would be entirely common practice to extend an engagement to an investigative journalist who announced that they had leads they were following on an active case, with a view to publishing an already contracted piece of work. This was not a reporter from the Truro Herald. This was a published author. I doubt they were asking permission to write a book. I doubt they said 'we'd like to write about what you have, but until you tell us what it is, we have nothing and there won't be a book.' Police officers are not generally noted for their psychic abilities. It would not be unusual to arrange a meeting in order to get a picture of what these writers actually have, what their angle is, where they're coming from. Neither side would be likely to discuss that by phone. Both would want to be in a controlled situation.

And what did DCI Redwood tell them? Certainly they went ahead and published claims and pertinent details that Redwood - within a matter of very little time at all - would be publicly refuting BEFORE the publication of the book took place. Did he tell them 'all the available evidence is right here' and hand them a dossier marked 'Grange: Top Secret'. Or did he send them in the direction of an internet document marked 'Portuguese Case Files: Release To Public.'

Have you studied how many lies and misrepresentations and fabrications and fallacies are in that book? Why would you believe what Summers and Swan say about anything? Their encounters? Their discussions? Their research sources?

You're connecting so many dots, and they don't really need connecting.

What you're ending up with is a conspiracy staffed by camp arch-villains whose villainy is obvious by the cat that they hold and the extension of a pinky, and their sneer. They all work from a secret lair which is marked on Google Maps using the term 'Secret Lair of Villainy.' They've got a secret plan drawn on a blueprint which is secret but has been posted on the internet for easy download. They're having secret meetings at which they arrive in a limousine having tipped off the press in advance, and pause for a moment outside a neon-bedecked hotel in the busiest part of town, for a photographic record of their presence….

Would you like me to leave the forum?

Would you like anyone who disagrees with you to leave the forum?

Would you like to run the forum yourself?

or would you rather just disrupt the forum with veiled threats and verbosity?

XTC wrote:I won't repeat what has been said in past posts but which part of " As if THE abduction happened in the UK "  
do we not understand?

It's not a pompous question I hope.

This phrase was announced publicly- for public consumption.

As far as I know the only time a parent can abduct their child is if they are dispute with their partner.

Madeleine's parents were not in dispute with each other. One of them did not " abduct " Madeleine as a result of a dispute.

The IFLG  deal with these disputes in an effort to resolve them.

What was the problem in the case of " abducted " Madeleine ?

More to the point: what was the IFLG role in this?

Surely according to OG this is an unknown stranger abduction- isn't it?

Or is it?

Opinion though.

I honestly don't get why there is such a spotlight on the word 'abduction'. Reading it again and it starts with:

Met remit wrote:

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.

Disappearance.

And then goes on:

Met remit wrote:

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.

Abduction in brackets.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. It may have been ordered to be inserted by TPTB or genuine belief. Maybe both words feature to satisfy both sides!   

On the OG section of the Met website it also states the Portuguese retain the lead, so even if OG whitewash their end they will continue on regardless, I would hope.

Post deleted.

There are two 'new' posters on this forum.

I have been targeted on Twitter even though I don't do Twitter. Oh yes, aquila is now the target of discrediting CMOMM. It's disgraceful. I'm not remotely interested in the machinations of Twitter on the mccann hashtag and now I'm being dragged into it. I suspect the new kids on the block on this forum have been here a few times. I recognize them. It's sad that this crap goes on.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Aquila, whoever you are, you're a waste of space. You can't argue with logic so you revert to nonsense [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

aquila wrote:There are two 'new' posters on this forum.

I have been targeted on Twitter even though I don't do Twitter. Oh yes, aquila is now the target of discrediting CMOMM. It's disgraceful. I'm not remotely interested in the machinations of Twitter on the mccann hashtag and now I'm being dragged into it. I suspect the new kids on the block on this forum have been here a few times. I recognize them. It's sad that this crap goes on.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Aquila, whoever you are, you're a waste of space. You can't argue with logic so you revert to nonsense [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@ aquila

If both Carla Spade and Roger Rabbit are attacking you, give yourself two badges of honour.

Rabbit's garbage is soon refuted by a look at Summers & Swan's roll call of sources ('Notes on Sources', pp.311 to 315).

They boast of

* meeting DCI REdwood: "He spoke to us frankly...urged us to do nothing which might impct negatively on the search for Madeleine

* meeting Jim Gamble: "We thank him especially

* letters from Ernie Allen, President of the grand-sounding International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC)

* meting Brian Kennedy, who "talked freely with us" 


But NOT Goncalo Amaral...all that they say about him is that his book 'is useful as an insight into the way the PJ investigation developed'.

@ Roger Rabbit

It's as plain as a pikestaff that 'Looking for Madeleine' was written to order after consulting the McCanns and Scotland Yard. Look at pages 254-255, for example, where the Crimewatch nonsense about the 2 e-fits of different-looking men and the miraculous 'discovery' of 'Crecheman' after over 6 years is dutifully reproduced without a murmur of doubt

TheTruthWillOut

You wrote:

"On the OG section of the Met website it also states the Portuguese retain the lead, so even if OG whitewash their end they will continue on regardless, I would hope."

But it is deceitful in that case.

If what you say is the case and OG are spending our money on a whitewash (IMO they are - which is why I get angry) is this how we expect our Police to behave. The thought that they are drawing salaries and all the time sniggering at us for swallowing their lies.

Angelique wrote:TheTruthWillOut

You wrote:

"On the OG section of the Met website it also states the Portuguese retain the lead, so even if OG whitewash their end they will continue on regardless, I would hope."

But it is deceitful in that case.

If what you say is the case and OG are spending our money on a whitewash (IMO they are - which is why I get angry) is this how we expect our Police to behave. The thought that they are drawing salaries and all the time sniggering at us for swallowing their lies.

Until the fat lady sings (I think that is the phrase I used a long time ago) I won't believe a whitewash is happening. Makes zero sense to me.

Angelique wrote:TheTruthWillOut

You wrote:

"On the OG section of the Met website it also states the Portuguese retain the lead, so even if OG whitewash their end they will continue on regardless, I would hope."

But it is deceitful in that case.

If what you say is the case and OG are spending our money on a whitewash (IMO they are - which is why I get angry) is this how we expect our Police to behave. The thought that they are drawing salaries and all the time sniggering at us for swallowing their lies.

Objective question…

If SY are  -  contrary to your claim that they are actively engaged in a criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice and cover up a crime committed across international borders, something which they have neither the power nor jurisdiction to authoritatively do  -  NOT 'whitewashing' anything, but are meaningfully contributing - whether it ultimately succeeds or fails - to an attempt to bring a right prosecution in this case, will you still be outraged and insist that their tactics were dishonest, underhand and deceptive? Would you be prepared to join with the defence for the accused and protest that such tactics and techniques are unlawful and render the prosecution case invalid?

If their actions end up resulting in charges brought against the people who you seem to hope would be charged, would you switch your support in the name of utterly transparent, publicly accountable police investigations?

Or would you regard their deceit and underhandedness as a necessary and cunning tool in catching criminals?

Do you fundamentally oppose undercover police investigation and infiltration techniques? Do you oppose honeytrap intelligence gathering, bait and switch, catch and release, good cop bad cop, and all the other tried , tested and universally employed (pragmatically, of course) tactics?

Are you universally opposed, or do the ends justify the means?

Posters are giving their opinions on what has happened/been said so far.    Crimewatch being a good example.  Any views on the Crimewatch programme RR?

plebgate wrote:Posters are giving their opinions on what has happened/been said so far.    Crimewatch being a good example.  Any views on the Crimewatch programme RR?

Yeah, and I tried to just append the exact same thought to the last of my posts…

You'd have to define what you think 'Crimewatch' is a good example of. Or isn't a good example of. It's an abstraction, as it stands… It's a cloud that looks like whatever it is that the observer says it looks like.

If you expected Crimewatch to declare the case solved and announce that Grange were about to pay a visit to Rothley, you'd be disappointed. If you expected it to give a running update of all the available evidence and the clear line of investigation, I think you'd be deluded. 'Crimewatch's' success  in the publics eye is built on an illusion - wherein the public are actually entertained by 'true crime' and engaged in a way which makes them feel like detectives watching investigations unfold before our eyes. We have not only no idea, but also no measure of how much of what we see on Crimewatch is actually true at all. The viewer believes what he is told, without doubt, because he's convinced that the BBC and the police are there for his wellbeing. He has no concept of whether each Crimewatch case is factually represented, manipulated, invented. Is it information? Provocation? Flushing? Is it intendt on maliciously deceiving the public, or forcing the error from a criminal, perhaps even the police use it to convey their suspicions as if they were fact in the hope that a witness will corroborate the claims.

If I don't know the intent and the integrity, then I wouldn't want to start with a presumption that I then need to justify. One thing is sure, that there is a strong likelihood that the Crimewatch offerings in question were not everything they seemed, based on the typical viewer assumption of the nature of Crimewatch. Similarly neither was the rather curious and pertinent portrayal in the reconstruction that was actually a dramatisation. Where I have the problem then is in assuming that the aim of BBC/SY was to assist the perverting of the course of justice. Neither the Crecheman reveal nor the efitmen reveals were complimentary to, or helpful to the McCann/Tapas narrative. And since then SY have done nothing to redress that 'damage', and have continued to erode the 'official' narrative progressively.

My other half is a manager for a high end high street retailer, and she often reminds me of the retail director's motto who usually rings every mid-morning to see how the sales are doing. 'It's not how you start that counts… it's how you finish.' At the beginning, appearances can be deceptive. But where do things go after that?

Almost all the pessimism about Grange seems to be rooted in people whining about how they think Andy Redwood has told the world exactly what Grange will or won't do. Can anyone genuinely believe that he ever would? Or it's about how accountable they thought Grange ought to be. But has anyone ever actually seen such an important criminal investigation be conducted in a 'populist' way, or as if it were the vox populi? Or because they think every five minutes Grange should tell us how much closer to our favourite suspects they are, as if they would. Or because they want to see Scotland Yard being vindictive about certain people, and starting to spit at them when they're in the same room and so on. Friends close and enemies closer...

pTheTruthWillOut wrote:Ah, the old vicious cycle! (roll eyes)

1, New member(s)
2, Immediate suspicion by long term posters

3, New members post reasonable but opposing views about case
4, Long term members reply in short, sharp, rude manner
5, New members (possibly) vent on Twitter about long term posters
6, Long term posters that don't do Twitter (but can find Tweets immediately!) complain

This is all very silly.

I agree.
I read aquila's post yesterday, 
which she deleted soon after.
Imo the reaction was to be expected.
Without reading that (now deleted) post,
it looks like this twitter attention for aquila
came out of the blue.
It did not. Fair's fair.

Happy Easter all
parapono

aquila wrote:I see that someone called Carla Spade has quoted me on Twitter. I suspect it's String.

I don't do Twitter, I don't do Face Book, I don't do any other forums and yet someone new to this forum has deemed to mention me on Twitter.

What a disgraceful act.

I'm here to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.

aquila - I don't do twitter!

I'm absolutely shocked by your accusation.  

This is just silly.

@CynicAL ooops sorry RogerRabit - posters here have based their opinions on what has been said directly by Mr. Redwood whereas you seem to be basing  your opinion on what might be going on in the background/undercover blah blah.

Your reply about Crimewatch is ridiculous, all flannel and there again basing your opinion on what it could possibly have meant rather than what the general public (except those in Portugal where the crime was committed) were asked/told was the position.

Over and out for me as it is hard enough to follow what's going on without adding into the mix that SY are talking "double dutch" and asking the gen. public to fathom what they really mean.   All except the gen. public in Portugal of course, where the crime took place.

Interesting that aquila is being targeted.   I wonder what she has posted that seems to have hit a nerve.

As to a post that aquila made and very quickly removed, hmmmm those twitterers must have their eyes glued to this site.   lol.

plebgate wrote:@CynicAL ooops sorry RogerRabit - posters here have based their opinions on what has been said directly by Mr. Redwood whereas you seem to be basing  your opinion on what might be going on in the background/undercover blah blah.

Your reply about Crimewatch is ridiculous, all flannel and there again basing your opinion on what it could possibly have meant rather than what the general public (except those in Portugal where the crime was committed) were asked/told was the position.

Over and out for me as it is hard enough to follow what's going on without adding into the mix that SY are talking "double dutch" and asking the gen. public to fathom what they really mean.   All except the gen. public in Portugal of course, where the crime took place.

Interesting that aquila is being targeted.   I wonder what she has posted that seems to have hit a nerve.

As to a post that aquila made and very quickly removed, hmmmm those twitterers must have their eyes glued to this site.   lol.

RogerRabbit.

Ah, now that's fair enough, Plebgate…

At least you're being honest about what we're talking about…

The question is, can you be consistent now?

You see, if we're agreeing that nothing about Grange is what it seems at it's simplest, first glance, as it is spoken, as it is written…

And you're saying that we may NOT 'read between the lines', or 'presume' MORE than is presented in the media…

Then you must also be denying any inherent complexity in what ANY of the individuals involved in this case at ANY level do or say.

You can't insist that a vast conspiracy theory is taking place, with underhand deeds left, right and centre, and PRESUME any more than any of them actually say, or choose to represent to the media, while at the same time denying that the same tactics you claim have been used by 'Team McCann' and their representatives are not possibly in use by any parties attempting to unravel what Team McCann might be doing.

If we agree that Grange cannot be understood to be any more than exactly whatever Grange has stated in the media, and should be judged as such, then not only do you have to presume that the McCann's must also be believed to be equally transparent, but also the 'involvement' of politicians, of Mitchell, of Summers and Swan, of Kennedy and so on. More than that, you could come to only one conclusion - without of course relying on presumptions, reading between the lines, interpreting double speak and the rest of it - and that is that Grange's stated aims as you insist they must be regarded are nothing but honest, transparent, best intended efforts to genuinely resolve an unresolved situation which is simply not having the effect you would have desired. You cannot infer any malcontent, connivance, contrivance or subterfuge, based on your insistence, which is not explicitly stated as intentional on the part of the principals involved.

Otherwise what you'd be saying is that everyone who agrees with whatever conclusion you've drawn can be as interpretational, reading-between-the-lines, conspiracy-minded, assumptive and fatalistically suspicious as they like, but anyone with a different view must adhere strictly to conditions of comprehension and informational processing which you yourself do not hold to.

I disagree fundamentally, of course. But at least that's honest.You can at least say that you're sufficiently pessimistic and prejudiced against understanding the SY component of the case that you refuse to see any further. You're not saying that the complexity and so on CANNOT be the case, you're just saying that you REFUSE to entertain the idea. You have the patience for believing the worst and parsing the information you have, accompanied by a good dose of suspicious-mindedness to think negatively, but you have no patience for looking at it through an alternative lens which might result in a patient, positive view.

Ok.

RR I think your last post shows that you do not read posts correctly.  Please do not try and put it back on me.  Can you find a post from me which is pessimistic?   I have posted about the right of people to post their opinions based on what has been said, not on what has not been said by the police.  
Trying to read between the lines and guessing what the police actually means (Imo) is a nonsense, such as you are suggesing re. the Crimewatch prog, which was not even shown in Portugal.   Oh wait, maybe they did mean to show it in Portugal but we, the gen. public have to work out why they didn't. 

Last post from me to you on this subject because it is yawn inducing and we have been here before.

It actually feels at present that there is so little news to get on with ,that people are beginning to attack one another verbally. That's sad ,but not unusual  maybe .We will all be understanding what we can , it should not need to come down to accusations on here I fear. Is it the EGO raising the heads again ? it seems to occur now and again . Lets all get on with taking in what we feel could be so ,just not good to get to argue over it ,back and forth . cheer up folks ,we just all be surprised one day . joyce1938

My opinion is there is too much faith put into what the 'general public' think. They haven't really cared since about a month after she disappeared and I'm in Leicester.

The general consensus, when asked, is the whole case/tapas 9 are dodgy but nothing can be done about it. It had effectively self whitewashed, why drag it back up and spend a further 4 years and £10 million+ to do the same again?

An example of government/media whitewashing is the recent "secret" house of commons vote on amending the OSA to protect child abuse whistle-blowers. It took a tiny internet-based news outlet (Exaro) weeks to find that out but the story was still buried. Silent, swift and didn't cost a penny.

It will take a certain couple to be arrested for the 'general public' to take notice IMO.

joyce1938 wrote:It actually feels at present that there is so little news to get on with ,that people are beginning to attack one another verbally. That's sad ,but not unusual  maybe .We will all be understanding what we can , it should not need to come down to accusations on here I fear. Is it the EGO raising the heads again ? it seems to occur now and again . Lets all get on with taking in what we feel could be so ,just not good to get to argue over it ,back and forth . cheer up folks ,we just all be surprised one day . joyce1938

Aww bless you Joyce, this thread was specifically hijacked by people who have been on the forum before, been banned and return to disrupt. It's not ego on my part I can assure you.

Happy Easter.

joyce1938 wrote:It actually feels at present that there is so little news to get on with ,that people are beginning to attack one another verbally. That's sad ,but not unusual  maybe .We will all be understanding what we can , it should not need to come down to accusations on here I fear. Is it the EGO raising the heads again ? it seems to occur now and again . Lets all get on with taking in what we feel could be so ,just not good to get to argue over it ,back and forth . cheer up folks ,we just all be surprised one day . joyce1938

Hi joyce1938

Yes it happens all the time on all the Madeliene forums past and present.

This is no exception.

But this is discussion and opposite theories will abound.

Nothing personal from me to anyone but the thing that strikes me the most about the remit
( posters can interpret the remit all they like - nothing wrong in that ) is precisely " As if THE abduction happened in the UK etc etc)

This isn't interpretation it is written ( as it says in the Bible ) by the folks that came up with Operation Grange's terms of reference.

They then proceeded to read it out ( as written ) to the public. No caveats say -" As if the crime happened in the UK etc etc "

No - " abduction "

As I said in my previous post no dispute between the parents ergo - It was not the parents who abducted Madeliene.

Double ergo - therefore it must be a non parent who abducted Madeleine.

Unless of course ( interpretation ) there was?

Politics on here and in Portugal and the UK is a key to this ( this is pure interpretation on my part ) and religion (apart as religion is
part of politics and not the other way round) from the start it was patently obvious that interference hindered the Search for Madeleine.

Incidentally not just on the UK side but the Portuguese side too.

Whatever Mr Amaral and his PJ team got up to officially and privately it was not to the taste of certain parties to go any further with that
initial ivestigation.

Don't ask me why but none of us know for certain and it's pure speculation.

I would ask posters to consider what the outcry would be in the British media if a Portuguese child went missing in the UK?

This child's disappearance was not solved after three plus years. Then the Portuguese police criticised the original search and insisted
that they send their best detectives in to review the case?

The Telegraph Express et al would be up in arms and the media in general would start it's great patriotic crusade against the Sardine Munching Cops.

All that I think I know is that both nations are ex Imperialistic nations and one is still more powerful ( politically and financially ( than the other). One carries more clout than the other. Politcs is a dirty business and whatever the reason was for removing Amaral and his team
may be the reason why it's not been solved.

You me and every other theorist of the case of Missing Madeleine are all in the same boat.

We don't know what actually happened and if OG remit is to explore further then OK I'll go with that. Something may come of it.

At the moment nothing has come of it and the search for suspects ( apart from the parents? ) continues but in the end if the Portuguese
Prosecutor says no - that means no and back on the shelf it goes.

Simple as that for me - even if it lasts another 7 years.

That's my interpretation for what it's worth.

p.s. Summers and Swann don't know either.

plebgate wrote:RR I think your last post shows that you do not read posts correctly.  Please do not try and put it back on me.  Can you find a post from me which is pessimistic?   I have posted about the right of people to post their opinions based on what has been said, not on what has not been said by the police.  
Trying to read between the lines and guessing what the police actually means (Imo) is a nonsense, such as you are suggesing re. the Crimewatch prog, which was not even shown in Portugal.   Oh wait, maybe they did mean to show it in Portugal but we, the gen. public have to work out why they didn't. 

Last post from me to you on this subject because it is yawn inducing and we have been here before.

No Plebgate, I wasn't saying it was about optimistic vs pessimistic. I was saying you seemed to intimate it was about two standards, and that what you seemed to be suggesting was that intricate speculations which take a pessimistic interpretation of SY statement and Grange activity were somehow less speculative, interpretational, or imaginative than those which arise optimistically. 

You illustrate the problem with your comment about the Crimewatch episode and whether it was shown in Portugal. To follow your line of argument, we need to simply accept that CWUK showed us a genuine, factual appeal for information by way of reconstruction which was all we needed to know. Even raising the subject of different content being issued in different territories calls for speculation as to 'why'. 

Thus, on the one hand you have the argument that the CW episode was aimed at influencing mass public opinion for purposes of deception. But to believe that you have to believe that BBC/SY were deliberately trying to persuade everybody in the UK by means of a TV show that not everyone in the UK watches, and weren't bothered about multiple versions of the show being identified and talked about around Europe, and didn't want to influence public thinking in any other countries. Is that really how all-powerful conspiracies persuade the masses? To undermine their own effectiveness and limit their influence?

On the other hand you have the argument that the CW episode represents a public move in a high stakes game which was coincidentally seen by a BBC viewing audience but was aimed at only a small handful who were exclusively in the UK and was not intended to reach a pan European audience because the scope of the messages was narrow. Nothing was undermined, nothing was compromised and what the public thought of it appeared to be utterly irrelevent to SY. They did not labour it, they did not repeat it endlessly, they did not ensure that all the public saw it, nor did they restrict or steer the flow of information around it, as is the hallmark of high level propaganda. 

In missing persons, k&r, blackmail cases the police have form and record for working with the media on info/disinfo and the conveyancing of messages/strategic movements through television and radio. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a fair-minded expert who wouldn't agree that Grange in this regard has all the appearance and hallmarks of being an intel operation of such a type. 

In my opinion, of course.

More bullshit baffles brains but with a 'twist'.

aquila wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:It actually feels at present that there is so little news to get on with ,that people are beginning to attack one another verbally. That's sad ,but not unusual  maybe .We will all be understanding what we can , it should not need to come down to accusations on here I fear. Is it the EGO raising the heads again ? it seems to occur now and again . Lets all get on with taking in what we feel could be so ,just not good to get to argue over it ,back and forth . cheer up folks ,we just all be surprised one day . joyce1938

Aww bless you Joyce, this thread was specifically hijacked by people who have been on the forum before, been banned and return to disrupt. It's not ego on my part I can assure you.

Happy Easter.

Kindly refrain from speaking on my behalf, Aquila. You've placed yourself in the centre of a paranoid fantasy in which you're a VIP victim, rather than one in a thousand curious spectators. 

Nothing has been 'hijacked.' You appear to be using that as a puzzling excuse to stifle debate and discussion. In case you hadn't noticed 'yout' point of view and contention is far more represented here than any other. The term 'hijack' denotes a violent change of course and control. That just hasn't happened. 

As for 'disrupting', what's been disrupted? A talking shop is still full of people talking. Don't be so afraid of opinions and the challenge to think intelligently about an issue. Iron sharpens iron. 

I do hope you find some peace and calm. You appear to be your own worst enemy, and are spooked by shadows.

aquila wrote:More bullshit baffles brains but with a 'twist'.

You appear to have a problem communicating with other sentient beings. I feel that you' re provocative, rude, combative and insulting. 

I thought this place was supposed to be rational, reasonable and respectful?

joyce1938 wrote:It actually feels at present that there is so little news to get on with ,that people are beginning to attack one another verbally. That's sad ,but not unusual  maybe .We will all be understanding what we can , it should not need to come down to accusations on here I fear. Is it the EGO raising the heads again ? it seems to occur now and again . Lets all get on with taking in what we feel could be so ,just not good to get to argue over it ,back and forth . cheer up folks ,we just all be surprised one day . joyce1938

Good message, Joyce and I certainly hope we will be pleasantly surprised to find justice fall in the right place, as one day it inevitably will. 

If this is a whitewash its such a bad one that for every year of freedom it buys the perpetrators, it will buy ten years of inconvenient exposes, unearthed facts, unconvinced journalists and unhappy voters. Stephen Lawrence, Jimmy Savile and Hillsborough all prove that the cover up is short lived, and those were all locked down far tighter than this one...