Re: Amy Tierney and those mysterious 6" x 4" photos - Extracts from the research thread on 3As

[tigger]

Eta more:
The 'poster photo' is as seen above the one in the pink top. That is imo NOT the one allegedly printed by Tierney, that was the trademark Icon, as ROB said  'face on'  , he  adds her hair is longer there (well done for remembering that instruction ROB)
Her hais is longer in the iconic photo than in the pink top one.

Not sure I am understanding you correctly.
These are the two versions of the poster,
Portuguese
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
English
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Are you referring to the one from the front cover of the book ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

That was released by the Press association on 4th, and was published widely on 5th.
So why was it not used for the poster ?

My understanding of the photos is that there always were two on that night, the red glossy 4x6 "  - about 30  of this one.
This is the one that Tierney allegedly printed a otherwise why make so many copies  when all you need is one to use for photocopying? i'd need to look at the statement of  the manager again who said they were photocopying the poster (which incidentally doesn't even mention her name!) .

Whereas this is ROB's statement:
Statement.
Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply “The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.

Which to my mind must be the Iconic image so belovedby the press.

The GNR officer who commented in his statement on the number of glossy photographs someone was seen holding does not mention iirc that any were handed to him. ROB says it was well before the PJ arrived, so that tallies with the officer's report.
The pink top one may have been one of posters copied by John Mills? And given to the PJ without the English text.
That's my reading of it. As the icon was the brand to be launched, no doubt the same photo was sent to the press by Jon Corner in the early hours of 4/5 - according to the US protocol for missing children. as Kate tells us in KH1.
Such foresight!

However, no idea to whom these iconic 4x6" were distributed. Olive press for one?

[diatribe]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine. If the McCanns had already disposed of their daughter's body, why would they feel the need to wrong foot the press, police et al regarding her appearance, after all, if the aforementioned were the case, she was never going to be found anyway. They could have given them a pic. of Shirley Temple for all the help it would have provided in finding an already dead child.

The only way doctoring old pics. of Madeleine would have benefitted the McCanns would have been to prove she had been on holiday with them in Portugal, when in fact she hadn't. If we are going down this route, we have to assume that not only were all their friends lying about her being there, but the Creche staff, the passport control authorities and anyone else who has attested to her presence in Portugal.

If anything, all the pics produced by the McCanns whilst in PDL would have been unhelpful to their hypothesis that they were being watched and set up, because not one of those pics.contained any background images of people who couldn't be accounted for.

What am I missing here?

[Guest]

quote the passport control authorities  unquote

I am not of the "Madeleine was not here" brigade, BUT any child could have traveled with this passport ...

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

[diatribe]

quote the passport control authorities  unquote

I am not of the "Madeleine was not here" brigade, BUT any child could have traveled with this passport ...

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

Okay, I'll concede that, Chatelaine, never having travelled with children, I was merely assuming that some kind of identification would be required, but that still leaves an awful lot of others who attested to her being in Portugal. Then there was the video of Gerry swearing, wasn't Madeleine included somewhere in that clip?

[PeterMac]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine.. . .

What am I missing here?

The significance of the Last PHoto and the over McEmphasis by Mitchell on looking at the time it was taken and seeing that it was one hour differrnt from the Uk and blah, blah, blah - all of the latter entirely irelevant-
is to show that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd May.

As with anything Mitchell says, do not accept it until you have checked it with other independent sources and evidence, to ensure that it fits.
We did
And it doesn't.

And the only logical conclusion to be drawn from Mitchell's gibbering - is that Madeleine was NOT alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd.
By his actions he has dropped them right in it.
Ha, Ha, Ha.

[diatribe]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine.. . .

What am I missing here?

The significance of the Last PHoto and the over McEmphasis by Mitchell on looking at the time it was taken and seeing that it was one hour differrnt from the Uk and blah, blah, blah - all of the latter entirely irelevant-
is to show that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd May.

As with anything Mitchell says, do not accept it until you have checked it with other independent sources and evidence, to ensure that it fits.
We did
And it doesn't.

And the only logical conclusion to be drawn from Mitchell's gibbering  - is that Madeleine was NOT alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd.
By his actions he has dropped them right in it.
Ha, Ha, Ha.

Thanks for explaining the significance of the last photo in relation to Mitchell, Peter. I'm afraid I can't even listen to Mitchell without an adequate supply of vomit buckets, never mind accept any of his verbal offerings as remotely resembling the truth. The only truthful statement he has ever made was on the lines of 'Its not for Kate and Gerry to prove their innocence, but for the police to prove their guilt.'

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

[Guest]

Does anyone know WHEN the cropped [and photoshopped] picture of Madeleine from the "Last photo" was exhibited at the church in PdL?

[PeterMac]

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

Absolutely correct.
The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.
Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.
Or perhaps Mitchell is too stupid, and the McCanns are too vain to realise that he had set an elephant trap.

[diatribe]

Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.

I'd guess it was a combination of vanity on their part and stupidity on Mitchells, as you so poignantly observed.

[Cristobell]

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

Absolutely correct.
The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.
Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.
Or perhaps Mitchell is too stupid, and the McCanns are too vain to realise that he had set an elephant trap.

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

[PeterMac]

I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

They do.

[Tony Bennett]

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

That may be the good news.

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'

[Newintown]

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

That may be the good news.

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'

No doubt copies were kept and can be sent again to "whoever shredded the evidence".

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary.  Do you think they're all going to have a nice jolly cheap off-season holiday together or do you think there may be other serious matters to deal with bearing in mind a criminal act has taken place whether it's murder/accidental death covered up/abduction, I doubt none of the SY team are taking it lightly and are going to PDL for a few days sunning themselves on all expenses paid.

[Guest]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine. If the McCanns had already disposed of their daughter's body, why would they feel the need to wrong foot the press, police et al regarding her appearance, after all, if the aforementioned were the case, she was never going to be found anyway. They could have given them a pic. of Shirley Temple for all the help it would have provided in finding an already dead child.

The only way doctoring old pics. of Madeleine would have benefitted the McCanns would have been to prove she had been on holiday with them in Portugal, when in fact she hadn't. If we are going down this route, we have to assume that not only were all their friends lying about her being there, but the Creche staff, the passport control authorities and anyone else who has attested to her presence in Portugal.

If anything, all the pics produced by the McCanns whilst in PDL would have been unhelpful to their hypothesis that they were being watched and set up, because not one of those pics.contained any background images of people who couldn't be accounted for.

What am I missing here?

That's good clear thinking

[RIPM]

After much investigation, Mr Amaral came to the conclusion M died in 5a, on Thursday 3rd May 2007 sometime after 5.30pm.  The PJ came to the same conclusion and shelved the case.

Op Grange after much investigation have stated publicly on more than one occasion, M was certainly alive at approx 5.30pm on 3rd May.

So why does anybody believe any or all of the above will say, "oh!... we are stupid, it was another day, another time, a few bloggers have pointed it out."

It will never, ever happen.

The same regarding the poolside photo.   Redwood after meticulous investigation is satisfied it is the last photo and was taken at about 1pm on Thursday 3rd May 07.  He has placed this on the public record, for all the world to see.  Does anyone seriously think he will admit Op Grange has been fooled and he is totally incompetent?

The only thing Mr Amaral, the PJ and Op Grange do agree upon, is that M was alive at 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May

IMO the PJ have drawn the correct conclusion and there is NO co-operation with SY. Why would there be when SY are hell bent on smashing the  Portuguese tourist industry?

[diatribe]

The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.

 Whilst I appreciate that a PR spokesman's opinion on a potential piece of evidence can be used to sway public opinion in favour of their client, could it be used against them in a subsequent criminal trial, after all, it is only conjecture in much the same way as our hypotheses are on this forum.

NB I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Peter. 

[Guest]

@ Tony

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'
***
You're kidding, aren't you? Please ...

[AndyB]

Chateleine, I'm afraid we may be by far the most corrupt country in Europe
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Edited to add - It was actually two lorry loads not just the one

[Tony Bennett]

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary. 

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

[diatribe]

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

Wot! not even any sticks of candy floss an' kiss me quick' hats, Tony.

[Newintown]

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary. 

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that anyone who has any influence within the UK government can murder/accidently harm their child and hide the body/cry "abduction" when there was no abduction and they will have the British police fawning over them and even going to another country for the 7th anniversary of the child's demise with the parents and attending the local church for the anniversary, I really think that is taking things too far.

Surely that would be starting a precedent for anyone who wanted to get rid of a child and knew they had the backing of some high up government official to hide the facts of what happened.

[Tony Bennett]

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary. 

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that...

Best not to interpret my words, Newintown, as you've not interpreted them correctly.

I stick by the five above words I used, except perhaps to add 'window-dressing'.

I do not see what the practical purpose is of any of what Scotland Yard has done so far, nor for that matter what the new Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders and her senior lawyer colleague achieved by their expensive trip to the Algarve just over a year ago. (Nice time of year to go, though)

Scotland Yard, after 3 years and £8 million plus, have piles upon piles of 'actions' and 'lines of enquiry' to pursue - mobile 'phones by the tens of thousnds, sex offenders numbered in the hundreds to check off and eliminate, and...well, you know as well as I do about the rest of their seriously impressive 'to do' list. 

I think this may be their 27th visit to the Algarve.

They have yet to identify 'pot-bellied smelly bin-man' or whoever else was involved in any of these 18 incidents, about which we have precious little real information.

Nor anyone else. It's taken them 3 years to sort out 60 suspects and eliminate 22 of them. Good! Only 38 left then, which should take another 5-6 years at the current rate of striking. Unless, of course, in the meantime they find even more suspects or 'persons of interest'. 

What if they do find him? What then? - if he doesn't confess immediately to abducting Madeleine McCann?

What forensics are there?

None so far as we know.

Who saw him?

Who heard him?

Who knows what he did wth Madeleine?

And even if all that produced something, who would prosecute him?

The Portuguese, unless the smelly bin man was a British citizen or resident.

The Portuguese, so far as we know, have not even answered the British police's rogatory requests.

So what is the real point of this May trip to the Algarve?

From all the press reports I have seen, it looks to me as though the Portuguese are rightly treating this Operation Grange fraud with the royal contempt it deserves

[Newintown]

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary. 

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that...

Best not to interpret my words, Newintown, as you've not interpreted them correctly.

I stick by the five above words I used, except perhaps to add 'window-dressing'.

I do not see what the practical purpose is of any of what Scotland Yard has done so far, nor for that matter what the new Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders and her senior lawyer colleague achieved by their expensive trip to the Algarve just over a year ago. (Nice time of year to go, though)

Scotland Yard, after 3 years and £8 million plus, have piles upon piles of 'actions' and 'lines of enquiry' to pursue - mobile 'phones by the tens of thousnds, sex offenders numbered in the hundreds to check off and eliminate, and...well, you know as well as I do about the rest of their seriously impressive 'to do' list. 

I think this may be their 27th visit to the Algarve.

They have yet to identify 'pot-bellied smelly bin-man' or whoever else was involved in any of these 18 incidents, about which we have precious little real information.

Nor anyone else. It's taken them 3 years to sort out 60 suspects and eliminate 22 of them. Good! Only 38 left then, which should take another 5-6 years at the current rate of striking. Unless, of course, in the meantime they find even more suspects or 'persons of interest'. 

What if they do find him? What then? - if he doesn't confess immediately to abducting Madeleine McCann?

What forensics are there?

None so far as we know.

Who saw him?

Who heard him?

Who knows what he did wth Madeleine?

And even if all that produced something, who would prosecute him?

The Portuguese, unless the smelly bin man was a British citizen or resident.

The Portuguese, so far as we know, have not even answered the British police's rogatory requests.

So what is the real point of this May trip to the Algarve?

From all the press reports I have seen, it looks to me as though the Portuguese are rightly treating this Operation Grange fraud with the royal contempt it deserves

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know?  Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase.  They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off at the forum members running around like headless chickens trying to make some sort of sense out of what SY is up to.

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

[Tony Bennett]

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know? 

You mean they are activley lying about the four blond men, lying about Smithman, lying about 'smelly bin man' etc.? All deliberate lies, is it?

Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase?

Deliberate baloney? No. Just enough to keep us 'on message'.

Try reviewing in your mind every broadcast, interview, press release or statement by the Met, Hamish Campbell, Martin Hewitt or Andy Redwood over the past 3 years about Grange's work. Ask yourslef this question: what is the core message they have relentlessly been punping out? 

They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off...

I'm pretty sure that they've been doing this for the past 3 years anyway, along with those that set the review up: Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch. I would laugh at them in turn if I could, if the issues surrounding this case were not so serious 

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

You may be missing a point. You and I may know that most of the press stories about Madeleine in recent years have been speculation at best and unadulterated rubbish at worst. But, like Operation Grange, the media are constantly 'on message': Madeleine was abducted, the wretched and incompetent buffoons of the Portuguese Police bungled the investigation, it needs Soctland Yard's finest to 'guide' them to the truth etc.  BBC's Crimewatch 'McCann Special', with its 6.7 million audience, was perhaps the prime and most effective recent example of MAINTAINING THE NARRATIVE.

Scotland Yard may be laughing now.

But 'he who laughs last, laughs best'

[Newintown]

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know? 

You mean they are activley lying about the four blond men, lying about Smithman, lying about 'smelly bin man' etc.? All deliberate lies, is it?

Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase?

Deliberate baloney? No. Just enough to keep us 'on message'.

Try reviewing in your mind every broadcast, interview, press release or statement by the Met, Hamish Campbell, Martin Hewitt or Andy Redwood over the past 3 years about Grange's work. Ask yourslef this question: what is the core message they have relentlessly been punping out? 

They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off...

I'm pretty sure that they've been doing this for the past 3 years anyway, along with those that set the review up: Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch. I would laugh at them in turn if I could, if the issues surrounding this case were not so serious 

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

You may be missing a point. You and I may know that most of the press stories about Madeleine in recent years have been speculation at best and unadulterated rubbish at worst. But, like Operation Grange, the media are constantly 'on message': Madeleine was abducted, the wretched and incompetent buffoons of the Portuguese Police bungled the investigation, it needs Soctland Yard's finest to 'guide' them to the truth etc.  BBC's Crimewatch 'McCann Special', with its 6.7 million audience, was perhaps the prime and most effective recent example of MAINTAINING THE NARRATIVE.

Scotland Yard may be laughing now.

But 'he who laughs last, laughs best'

We will have to agree to disagree.  Time will tell hopefully within the not too distant future as to who was responsible for Madeleine's "disappearance".  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face.  After all a little girl of barely 4 years old has disappeared from a holiday apartment with numerous discrepancies within all the witness statements given, that cannot be forgotten and won't be forgotten.

[Tony Bennett]

We will have to agree to disagree.  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face. 

"There is none so blind, as those who will not see".

[diatribe]

''they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face''




There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Gillyspot]

From my transcript of Rachel Burden interview with Paul Luckman

Paul  - "Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. "

So just WHAT "faith" should we have with the Met???

[Tony Bennett]

From my transcript of Rachel Burden interview with Paul Luckman

Paul  - "Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. "

So just WHAT "faith" should we have with the Met???

A look at the track record of the man put in overall charge of Operation Grange, Hamish Campbell, should be enough for us to realise that this was always going to be a dishonest investigation.

Who put that piece of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara's coat pocket?

Who co-ordinated all the 'spin' lies about the culprit responsible for the point-blank range killing of Jill Dando being an 'obsessive loner'?

Whose fault was it that an innocent man spent 7 years in prison?

Thanks for the quote, Gillyspot.

Is your full transcript availabe for us to read anywhere, please?

[Woofer]

From "The Editor of Portuguese ....." thread :-


Gillyspot wrote:My attempt at a transcript

"
Rachel=British police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann say they are looking at 18 break ins into villas on the Algarve by a lone intruder.




6 have come to light since an appeal last month, with 5 involving an alleged sexual assaults against young British girls.




Paul Luckman is the publisher of the english newspaper the Portugal News and has followed this whole story and the whole investigation over the past few years very closely.




Morning Paul. So do you thing the Met Police are genuinely onto something new here?




PL – Em, I think I Have to question it. the Met. We have certainly heard nothing of these cases and anything involving foreigners comes pretty quickly to our ears. Its inevitable we are the largest English paper in Portugal you get to hear about these things. Em I noticed locally, certainly nationally, none of the national papers have picked up on this story and they have extremely good police contacts here. I don't think anybody here is taking this seriously and you really begin to wonder er I wonder after all the money that the Met have spent on this case if they're not looking to almost justify, I think we're looking what £7 million at the minute, on the investigation.




Rachel – Yeah , just be clear you're saying that you doubt the reports of these break ins, or..just the fact that they might be connected in some way to the Madeleine McCann disappearance.




PL – D'you know I am not in the position to, to say that definitely. But there have been no reports on this. Em at anytime I have found this extremely strange. I have searched through all our archives. Nothing has come to our ears or been reported.




Rachel – What about this assault on a 10 year old girl back in 2005 in Praia Da Luz. Now that's only recent that information & we don't know why it's only come to light recently. There are all sorts of … potential explanations. It could be that the child herself didn't report it at the time, They have to look closely at something like that don't they.




PL – Well the police will look closely and I think that the attitude, certainly the comments that I heard yesterday I believe eh will do little to create good relations between the English police and the Portuguese Police who are trying very hard to get this resolved. They have reopened the case




Rachel (interrupts) – are they cooperating with the Met?




PL – Yes, totally em this, this suggestion that they're not. I read headlines in the UK this morning arrests imminent … complete nonsense em the, the Met cannot make and I am sure they're not even claiming, they can't come into Portugal to make arrests mm you'll remember we had a situation like this 2, 3 months ago where there was mass coverage and they were arriving to make arrests and it just petered into nothing, there was nothing it was just a regular visit. Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. Uh as I say I am very surprised there is no coverage at all not from any of the major dailies here in Portugal this morning and they are extroadinarly well connected much so than us ourselves of course. Just no mention at all.

Rachel – (interrupts) as you say we'll wait to see what happens. Thank you very much Paul, nice to talk to you. "

Note the bit in BOLD