Re: Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

by HKP 30.06.15 13:51

@Joss. I meant just trotting out what has been contradictory messages from Chris, even his dates for July & October do not stack up. Archive.org are under no obligation to Joe Public to answer our questions however it is much easier to come out with an explanation which will at least inform the hordes and might actually stop the number of requests that you are suggesting they are getting. Or they can stay reasonably silent and hope it goes away, he probably made things worse with his last statement.

by Joss 30.06.15 14:02

HKP wrote:@Joss. I meant just trotting out what has been contradictory messages from Chris, even his dates for July & October do not stack up. Archive.org are under no obligation to Joe Public to answer our questions however it is much easier to come out with an explanation which will at least inform the hordes and might actually stop the number of requests that you are suggesting they are getting. Or they can stay reasonably silent and hope it goes away, he probably made things worse with his last statement.

I don't think he really cares one way or the other about it IMO. Why would he?, he is in the U.S. and nothing to do with the McCann case. And saying to take it up with the police in the email, is imo, saying he wants nothing more to do with people's enquiries about it, so take it elsewhere. That's how i interpret it anyway.

by HKP 30.06.15 14:07

@Joss. I think you are correct which is why we shouldn't take what he has or hasn't said as gospel as clearly what he's said up until now is not correct.

by HelenMeg 30.06.15 14:12

Claire25 wrote:
The Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".
Spot on. This is exactly what I think.

I've been following and whilst I don't really understand the technical side and also can imagine it's easy to cling onto the hope that some concrete evidence is found, theres some twitchy behaviour going on from some people who seem desperate to convince everyone it's all an error just so we all don't look stupid.

I've very much swung to the view that the page existed on 30/04 now too. I don't understand the arguments, but more of the posters in that camp seem genuine.

I've also read the thread and arguments. I have seen nothing to make me believe that the crawler did not find the CEOP McCann page on 30th April. We seem to be bending over backwards to find a reason rather than believing the simple. If Madeleine died earlier in the week then this ties in logically with a call to CEOP from a VIP. 'look we have a massive problem. A small girl has died out here. Its rather awkward and I need to pull in a favour. Due to the intense sensitivity of guests out here we need to cover this as a paedophile abduction - you will be called - please be on standby'...
The next thing we know, someone is creating a CEOP file in anticipation.

Although I am still to be persuaded on death earlier in the week, if this file has a valid date stamp of 30th April then its not too surprising, along with a hurried return to Pd L by RM and the beginning of abnormal mobile phone use of Kate Mc Cann (cant remember the exact dates of when she started abnormal use of mobile but it perhaps ties in - taken from thread here: - On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCanns telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the creches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the Creche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the 'Dispatches' team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that 'Madeleine was a screamer'. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

Furthermore:

.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Guest on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:03 am
Monday 30th April

Compared to other days, this day appears to be blackout day.

Kate, no calls or texts. Phone appears to be switched off.

Gerry, no calls or texts. Phone appears to be switched off.

GuestGuest

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

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:17 pm
Tuesday 1 May

Kate McCann involved in at least 13 mobile phone conversations and/or texts. The PJ log omits to indicate with whom - but they must know. A whole bunch of these were just before 2230 that evening.
Gerry McCann's mobile appears to be silent, but since Annex 37 of the PJ report has been withheld, it is impossible to say for certain.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Researcher

Posts: 617
Join date: 2010-10-13
Location: Catalunya, Spain

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

Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

by Joss 30.06.15 14:19

HKP wrote:@Joss. I think you are correct which is why we shouldn't take what he has or hasn't said as gospel as clearly what he's said up until now is not correct.

Under those circumstances if that's what it is, from WBM's end, how will anyone find out exactly what happened? Nobody wants to say, not CEOP, not WBM, because JG & CB both say its a mistake. I wonder if Stevo who initially put the information out there, has come up with anything else yet? I think he was still looking into it from what i last read about it, and i don't do facebook, so can't read on his page without signing in.

by Joss 30.06.15 14:29

HelenMeg wrote:
Claire25 wrote:
The Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".
Spot on. This is exactly what I think.

I've been following and whilst I don't really understand the technical side and also can imagine it's easy to cling onto the hope that some concrete evidence is found, theres some twitchy behaviour going on from some people who seem desperate to convince everyone it's all an error just so we all don't look stupid.

I've very much swung to the view that the page existed on 30/04 now too. I don't understand the arguments, but more of the posters in that camp seem genuine.
I've also read the thread and arguments. I have seen nothing to make me believe that the crawler did not find the CEOP McCann page on 30th April. We seem to be bending over backwards to find a reason rather than believing the simple. If Madeleine died earlier in the week then this ties in logically with a call to CEOP from a VIP. 'look we have a massive problem. A small girl has died out here. Its rather awkward and I need to pull in a favour. Due to the intense sensitivity of guests out here we need to cover this as a paedophile abduction - you will be called - please be on standby'...
The next thing we know, someone is creating a CEOP file in anticipation.

Although I am still to be persuaded on death earlier in the week, if this file has a valid date stamp of 30th April then its not too surprising, along with a hurried return to Pd L by RM and the beginning of abnormal mobile phone use of Kate Mc Cann (cant remember the exact dates of when she started abnormal use of mobile but it perhaps ties in - taken from thread here: - On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCanns telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the creches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the Creche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the 'Dispatches' team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that 'Madeleine was a screamer'. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

.

Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

HelenMeg.

by **PeterMac** 30.06.15 14:53

The dogs' alerts were "Something to do with a subset"
The broken shutters were "Something to do with a subset"
The front door changing to the patio door was "Something to do with a subset"
The curtains 'whooshing' on a flat calm night were "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to tell the truth from day ONE was "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to search was "Something to do with a subset"
The altered EXIF metadata on the Last Photo was "Something to do with a subset"
? ? ?

It is a brilliant "all-purpose" response. Totally meaningless, but designed to make the questioner feel inadequate, and to give up for fear of being though ignorant.
The appropriate follow up question is therefore
exactly what, and to do with which subset of what ?
Which ought to make the responder feel inadequate

by **Jill Havern** 30.06.15 14:53

HelenMeg wrote:Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

Why would Stevo distract us from the Fund?

Stevo has written a book about this case - Faked Abduction - and has written many blogs and websites and hosted a forum and was a member of the Madeleine Foundation.

Nah nah

by Joss 30.06.15 15:13

PeterMac wrote:The dogs' alerts were "Something to do with a subset"
The broken shutters were "Something to do with a subset"
The front door changing to the patio door was "Something to do with a subset"
The curtains 'whooshing' on a flat calm night were "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to tell the truth from day ONE was "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to search was "Something to do with a subset"
The altered EXIF metadata on the Last Photo was "Something to do with a subset"
? ? ?

It is a brilliant "all-purpose" response. Totally meaningless, but designed to make the questioner feel inadequate, and to give up for fear of being though ignorant.
The appropriate follow up question is therefore
exactly what, and to do with which subset of what ?
Which ought to make the responder feel inadequate

Yes that would be an appropriate follow up question, but don't think there will be a response. So just another "subset" to add to all the rest of the "subsets" you have mentioned.

by jeanmonroe 30.06.15 15:44

More on CEOP

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

If you 'click' on the various 'links', within.

There's NOT a single LAST 'photo' (swimming pool) ANYWHERE!

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'out of date' photo on their early 'pages' when there was, a readily available, LAST 'photo' (by pool) in KM's camera, taken, just a few hours BEFORE she 'disappeared'?

WHY didn't CEOP, or 'others', USE the very LAST 'photo', (available on 3rd May 2007, as KM tells us) on their website?

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'old/out of date' photo of Madeleine.?

CEOP were 'on the ground' erm, within HOURS, 'competing' against 'other' LE 'agencies' (ref: JG, ex CEOP, CEO) to 'get the scoop'

Nevertheless, CEOP, did NOT 'use' the 'last' photo.

WHY didn't the McCann's, themselves, 'crop' the 'last' photo, to 'leave' just Madeleine, in 'frame', which was 'in' KM's camera, so she says, hours before Madeleine's 'disappearance' and 'distribute' the 'crop' to 'searchers/police' on 4th May, 2007?

Did CEOP 'ask' the McCann's for 'the very last photo's' of Madeleine, they HAD, before 'using' a totally 'irrelevant, out of date' photo on their website?

EVERYBODY was going to 'be looking' for the 'girl' CEOP 'published' and nobody would have ever 'found' THAT 'girl'

'She' didn't exist in PDL!

Maybe, that was all part of 'the plan'?

thinking

WHY WOULD CEOP 'USE' AN 'OUT OF DATE' PHOTO ON THEIR WEBSITE?

(in the days and first two weeks AFTER Madeleine's 'disappearance')

by Joss 30.06.15 15:59

jeanmonroe wrote:More on CEOP

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

If you 'click' on the various 'links', within.

There's NOT a single LAST 'photo' (swimming pool) ANYWHERE!

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'out of date' photo on their early 'pages' when there was, a readily available, LAST 'photo' (by pool) in KM's camera, taken, just a few hours BEFORE she 'disappeared'?

WHY didn't CEOP, or 'others', USE the very LAST 'photo', (available on 3rd May 2007, as KM tells us) on their website?

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'old/out of date' photo of Madeleine.?

CEOP were 'on the ground' erm, within HOURS, 'competing' against 'other' LE 'agencies' (ref: JG, ex CEOP, CEO) to 'get the scoop'

Nevertheless, CEOP, did NOT 'use' the 'last' photo.

WHY didn't the McCann's, themselves, 'crop' the 'last' photo, to 'leave' just Madeleine, in 'frame', which was 'in' KM's camera, so she says, hours before Madeleine's 'disappearance' and 'distribute' the 'crop' to 'searchers/police' on 4th May, 2007?

Did CEOP 'ask' the McCann's for 'the very last photo's' of Madeleine, they HAD, before 'using' a totally 'irrelevant, out of date' photo on their website?

EVERYBODY was going to 'be looking' for the 'girl' CEOP 'published' and nobody would have ever 'found' THAT 'girl'

'She' didn't exist in PDL!

Maybe, that was all part of 'the plan'?

WHY WOULD CEOP 'USE' AN 'OUT OF DATE' PHOTO ON THEIR WEBSITE?

(in the days and first two weeks AFTER Madeleine's 'disappearance')

Well that is an excellent question, and it makes no sense whatsoever to use an old photo of Madeleine IMO. There are so many questions about the dubious nature of this case and no answers to be found. And i agree, it could have been that Madeleine never was a "findable child" for reasons we can only guess at, sad

by Skyrocket1 30.06.15 16:03

This morning I emailed an overseas University Professor (PhD) who is also president of his countries 'Association of Research into IT'. I don't feel it would be protocol to name him but his areas of expertise cover:

'His research interests cover the broad scope of digital libraries and information spaces, including specifically text and music information retrieval and organization, information visualization, as well as data analysis, neural computation and digital preservation.'

This is the email I sent at 10.00am:

Dear ******

I understand that you are an expert in the field of digital libraries and data capture. I am wondering whether you would be able to help to explain a technical issue regarding the Wayback Machine based in San Francisco.

A problem has occured with the capture of a specific web page on a specific date. The page was recorded as captured on a date in 2007 and was visible with the date stamp 20070430115803 on the Wayback Machine, up to 17 June 2015. Archive . org were asked on the 17 June 2015 (by an American woman) for confirmation of the date stamp for that page. She received an email reply the same morning, with copies of the page attached, confirming that the capture was correct. In the afternoon, a Canadian woman spoke to the same manager at Archive . org by telephone and discussed the page with him. Shortly after the telephone converstion, the manager responded to the second woman by email saying that they now believed the page date was a mistake and that it was being looked into. On the 18 June 2015 the page was removed and any search now links to the next available page instead.

The only question I have (at the moment!) is this: As I understand it the WB Machine - trawls - captures - date/time stamps - stores - a page. Is there any way that this process can go wrong resulting in the web page being dated before it existed on the web? I believe it did exist, others don't.

Thanks for your time - I really hope you can give me a definitive response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

**********

I received the following response within 45 minutes (note that the underlining has been done by me):

Dear ******

Your question is a very good one, but unfortunately not one that is straight-forward to answer, as it touches upon a lot of the technicalities related to Web crawling:
First, a webpage is usually not just a single file to be downloaded, but consists of several elements (text, inline images, ...) Depending on how the crawler downloads these it may happen that some parts are downloaded at a later date than the main text part of the page.
This issue has been discovered and resolved in later versions of the crawler used, prioritizing e.g. in-line images in the crawling queue, downloadi them immediately. So it will depend on the version of the crawler used.
Secondly, there have been many incidents of data having been lost due to disc failures (such a web archive is huge, so it is not easily feasible to keep several redundant copies). I have noticed in the past that when requesting a page at a given date that should be available, the server sometimes returned a different date (visible in the URL), serving most users' needs (and hiding the issue of data loss) but being at fault with good archival practices. I have critizized tis befire when meeting people from the IA, and I am not sure whether this is still the case or whether this re-direction has been made more explicit by now.
Thirdly, it is an issue of data management: I have too little insights into the internal operations of the IA, how time-stamps are assigned and managed, and the kind of errors that can happen at this level. I am pretty sure that the IA does not compute any cryptographic hash keys including timestamps over their data, so the concept of authenticity which usually is a cornerstone of a proper archive will be way harder to establish and verify than if you had the procedures that are in place at, say, The National Archives at the UK. (But then, it would probably be pretty hard and significantly more expensive to offer such services for something at the level of a global web archive)

Depending on what page is affected it might be possible to find it in another (possibly more properly managed) archive?
Also, if the question is merely whether a certain page existed as opposed to the content of the individual components it was made up of, then the situation is somewhat different: it would feel strange to find a webpage crawled with a certain date which should not have existed at that time stamp. This would hint at a much more complex error in the crawler set-up and should be reflected in zillions of pages. Also, this issue of mere existence might be discoverable from the source pages that contained a link to the page in question, i.e. the page that led the crawler to it in the first place, so existence is different from content.
For anythin beyond that, the log files might provide evidence of when a certain oage was actually crawled, but I am not sure whether the IA keeps those log files, and I have certainly never seen any of these made public.

Also, the IA has no globally valid mandate and legal basis for storing and redistributing webpages, so anybody can reauest the deletion of pages that they can provide evidence for of being the owner - again, a significant difference to a proper archive.

In a nutshell, it really depends on the structure of the page, the crawler used, and any erros that may have happened during data management, apart from the fact that any page can be deleted at the owner's request (if I remember IA's policies correctly - I did not have any more intnsive contact wih them for quite many years by now)

I hope this helps somewhat.

best regards,

********

I have since checked out the National Archives UK but although there are some archived ceop.gov.uk pages, none help (I don't think).

Hope this adds something to the mix.

by siobhan3443 30.06.15 16:12

@skyrocket

could you forward him on the index log file

by HKP 30.06.15 16:45

@Skyrocket. If sending the index it would be pertinent to point out that every jpg within the index displays the same process i e. Single captures (on a specific day) followed by a date range. The Madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs follow the same process. The McCann html starts a date range on 30/04/07 to 04/09/09 but has single captures on specific days.

by siobhan3443 30.06.15 16:49

surely he can see for himself, but sure if you're sending him tips also point out that many files and news article are dated after the 30 april. make sure you send him the link to access him himself, we wouldn't want him getting any corrupted files

by HKP 30.06.15 17:20

@siobahn. Personally I would send him the link that Dr Martin established there is enough data there for a good search around (this is the index you speak of). He can find for himself that the McCann html and Madeleine jpgs were generated on 30/04 unless it can be proven that these specific files were not.

by worriedmum 30.06.15 17:33

jeanmonroe ''Nevertheless, CEOP, did NOT 'use' the 'last' photo.

WHY didn't the McCann's, themselves, 'crop' the 'last' photo, to 'leave' just Madeleine, in 'frame', which was 'in' KM's camera, so she says, hours before Madeleine's 'disappearance' and 'distribute' the 'crop' to 'searchers/police' on 4th May, 2007?

Did CEOP 'ask' the McCann's for 'the very last photo's' of Madeleine, they HAD, before 'using' a totally 'irrelevant, out of date' photo on their website?''

jeanmonroe, somebody did do just that. On the 'Madeleine was Here' documentary, part two, Kate has just such an image over her workstation, 3.35 onwards.......but it wasn't for use in the search?

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

by Skyrocket1 30.06.15 17:54

Siobahn/HKP

I am way behind with all this and only had time to dip in - haven't read half the posts. Can one of you post the link you're on about - it's obviously recorded data that someone's accessed prior to the 18 June and that Dr Martin has posted copy of, correct? Or not?

Anyway, I'm happy to forward it on to him - whether I get a response is another matter but I will of course post anything I get back.

by HKP 30.06.15 18:04

@skyrocket1. Guests can't post links but you'll find it in the onlyinamericablog then comments section, its easy to find. I downloaded it to excel and looked from there (it's quite an eye opener)

by Nina 30.06.15 18:10

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

by Skyrocket1 30.06.15 18:14

@ HKP - thanks for that. I'll have a look and go from there. Will get back on here if/as soon as I hear anything back from the Prof - I'll work on the premise that he has better things to do than check his work email when he goes home at night so I'll contact him first thing tomorrow.

by siobhan3443 30.06.15 18:25

@skyrocket1

The link (as copied from my web browser) was: https : // web . archive . org /web / * /http : / /www . ceop . gov . uk/*

i have copied and pasted this from the comments in the onlyinamerica blog. remove the spaces, as nina has pointed out i can't post links

thanks

by Richard Henshaw 30.06.15 18:51

I believe that I'm becoming addicted to this case!

@HKP - Your analysis is excellent.

I have one question. Why did the McCann's protest against CEOP merger?

"The parents of Madeleine McCann joined police chiefs and Sara Payne in voicing concerns over the plans for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).
Jim Gamble, the centre's head, this week announced he was quitting in protest at the merger, which he believes would leave children more vulnerable.
The growing condemnation last night piled pressure on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, but she stood firm in her intention to merge Ceop with the National Crime Agency.
Kate and Gerry McCann urged ministers to remember the importance of the "invaluable work" carried out by Ceop while Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, said the move would "harm child safety networks".
Sara Payne, campaigner and mother of murdered eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah, said she was "disgusted" by the Government's actions and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the body should remain stand alone.
Mr Gamble quit as Ceop chief executive on Monday warning the plans were not in the "best interest" of vulnerable children.
His decision sparked widespread criticism of the Home Office and concerns that children will not be as well protected from those looking to groom them online.
Mr and Mrs McCann said in a statement: "Knowing how committed Mr Gamble is to this cause, it is extremely saddening that he feels unable to continue to lead Ceop, apparently as a consequence of the proposed Governmental changes.
"In this challenging economic climate, we urge the Government to remember the value of our children and the importance of the invaluable work which is necessary to protect them against the devastating crimes of child abduction and exploitation."
Mrs Payne, Shy Keenan and Fiona Crook – who jointly set up the campaign group the Phoenix Foundation – said: "We cannot begin to describe how disgusted we are with our own Government for betraying him and for betraying all of our children.
"This cannot be allowed to happen, we must stand up and fight, we must do what is right for the protection of our children against the crimes of paedophiles."
Ms Keenan added: "The Government has already severely diluted child protection services. Deconstructing one of this country's most effective, cutting-edge, child protection-focused centres is not in the best interest of our children, full stop."
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said it was "in firm support" of Ceop remaining as a stand-alone agency.
Maggie Atkinson, the Children's Commissioner for England, warned that Ceop could be lost in the new organisation and that vulnerable young people would be less willing to approach it for help.
Ceop was set up in 2006 tasked with tracking online paedophiles and bringing them to court.
It is currently affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).
But under Government plans, the agency will become part of a new National Crime Agency in 2013.
As Ceop chief executive, Mr Gamble led calls for Facebook to set up a "panic button" to give reassurance for young users. The application has been downloaded tens of thousands of times since being launched in July.
A Home Office spokesman denied there were any plans to undermine the work of Ceop, saying child protection "will always be an absolute priority for the Government".
"We propose to build on Ceop's invaluable work tackling sexual exploitation of children by placing it centre-stage in the fight against all forms of serious and organised crime," he said.
"We are determined that plans for the National Crime Agency will enhance all our capabilities, and discussions are ongoing about how that will be done."
The spokesman added: "Ceop already delivers excellent work as part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Government is clear this work must continue."

by **PeterMac** 30.06.15 19:12

Richard Henshaw wrote:I believe that I'm becoming addicted to this case!

I have one question. Why did the McCann's protest against CEOP merger?
Ceop was set up in 2006 tasked with tracking online paedophiles and bringing them to court

I have one more question.
Unless Madeleine was already ON-line - and the CATS folders of both KM and GM may lead excitable and suspicions minds to make ludicrous links . .
Why was CEOPS involved at all, ever, with an alleged abduction of a little girl in a foreign country . . .

by HelenMeg 30.06.15 19:22

Richard Henshaw wrote:I believe that I'm becoming addicted to this case!

@HKP - Your analysis is excellent.

I have one question. Why did the McCann's protest against CEOP merger?

"The parents of Madeleine McCann joined police chiefs and Sara Payne in voicing concerns over the plans for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).
Jim Gamble, the centre's head, this week announced he was quitting in protest at the merger, which he believes would leave children more vulnerable.
The growing condemnation last night piled pressure on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, but she stood firm in her intention to merge Ceop with the National Crime Agency.
Kate and Gerry McCann urged ministers to remember the importance of the "invaluable work" carried out by Ceop while Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, said the move would "harm child safety networks".
Sara Payne, campaigner and mother of murdered eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah, said she was "disgusted" by the Government's actions and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the body should remain stand alone.
Mr Gamble quit as Ceop chief executive on Monday warning the plans were not in the "best interest" of vulnerable children.
His decision sparked widespread criticism of the Home Office and concerns that children will not be as well protected from those looking to groom them online.
Mr and Mrs McCann said in a statement: "Knowing how committed Mr Gamble is to this cause, it is extremely saddening that he feels unable to continue to lead Ceop, apparently as a consequence of the proposed Governmental changes.
"In this challenging economic climate, we urge the Government to remember the value of our children and the importance of the invaluable work which is necessary to protect them against the devastating crimes of child abduction and exploitation."
Mrs Payne, Shy Keenan and Fiona Crook – who jointly set up the campaign group the Phoenix Foundation – said: "We cannot begin to describe how disgusted we are with our own Government for betraying him and for betraying all of our children.
"This cannot be allowed to happen, we must stand up and fight, we must do what is right for the protection of our children against the crimes of paedophiles."
Ms Keenan added: "The Government has already severely diluted child protection services. Deconstructing one of this country's most effective, cutting-edge, child protection-focused centres is not in the best interest of our children, full stop."
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said it was "in firm support" of Ceop remaining as a stand-alone agency.
Maggie Atkinson, the Children's Commissioner for England, warned that Ceop could be lost in the new organisation and that vulnerable young people would be less willing to approach it for help.
Ceop was set up in 2006 tasked with tracking online paedophiles and bringing them to court.
It is currently affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).
But under Government plans, the agency will become part of a new National Crime Agency in 2013.
As Ceop chief executive, Mr Gamble led calls for Facebook to set up a "panic button" to give reassurance for young users. The application has been downloaded tens of thousands of times since being launched in July.
A Home Office spokesman denied there were any plans to undermine the work of Ceop, saying child protection "will always be an absolute priority for the Government".
"We propose to build on Ceop's invaluable work tackling sexual exploitation of children by placing it centre-stage in the fight against all forms of serious and organised crime," he said.
"We are determined that plans for the National Crime Agency will enhance all our capabilities, and discussions are ongoing about how that will be done."
The spokesman added: "Ceop already delivers excellent work as part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Government is clear this work must continue."

From what I remember reading about this, Jim had developed his own little empire with CEOP - he was able to do what he wanted. The government recognised this was not a good thing and decided to bring it into line so that there was some accountability rather than one man who could virtually do as he liked. JG was angry and being firmly seated within the wider Team Mc Cann camp, this was worrying to the Team M Ccann. Jim's powers were being reduced

Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.