New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

by **Jill Havern** 12.03.20 9:18

Recently we submitted this Petition on the Prime Minister's website:

MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Background

Many concerns have been voiced about the remit and conduct of Operation Grange, the MetPolice’s investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. It has been running for 9 years, costing £13 million, with no indication that any progress is being made. An independent inquiry is urgently needed.

Additional Details

Former MetPolice DCI Colin Sutton said in 2017 that when Operation Grange was set up, a senior Met officer advised him not to head it “Because you wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could and could not look at". The original remit was not a full re-investigation. It was restricted to one line of enquiry. London Assembly members have strongly criticised the Met investigation & its costs. An independent body must review the conduct of the investigation.

Yesterday I received the following email:

Dear Jill Havern,

Sorry, we can’t accept your petition – “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”.

It included confidential, libellous, false or defamatory information, or a reference to a case which is active in the UK courts.

You can find out how to complain about the police here - https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints-and-appeals/make-complaint We can't publish petitions that refer to active police investigations, and cannot publish petitions about individuals without the permission of their family or them. We've hidden your petition to avoid causing any distress to the McCann family.

We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards:
https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards

If you want to try again, click here to start a petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

COMMENT

1. There is no confidential information in the petition (Colin Sutton's comment was published many times in the media)

2. There is no libellous information in the petition. No-one is named or libelled in the petition

3. There is no false information in the petition

4. There is no defamatory information in the petition

5. The McCann case is NOT active in the UK courts.

It should also be noted that the Prime Minister has accepted previous Petitions, one of which was handed in by Tony Bennett and other members of the MMRG:

New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation” 10_dow11

Petition on Prime Minister's website calling for Home Office to publish a full report on Operation Grange

A petition critical of Operation Grange is presented at 10 Downing Street: 29th April 2016

All other Petitions can be found on these links:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f83-petitions

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f14-petitions-calling-for-full-public-and-judicial-enquiries

by Guest 12.03.20 9:27

It included confidential, libellous, false or defamatory information, or a reference to a case which is active in the UK courts.

Who decided things were confidential, libelous, false or defamatory.
Purely subjective.

This is a cover-up for sure.

by Milo 12.03.20 12:05

What a strange response to the MMGR petition.

Sounds like they are writing to their best buddy ("sorry, we can't"; "if you want to try again"; "Thanks"; "...team"). Nice and informal from the clerical (support) staff who follow simple rules.

How far up the chain of influence (incompetence) would the existence of the petition have reached?

It seems to be a template they use with blanks for specifics like the author's name. The second line has a string of "or"s - and so confidential, libellous, false, defamatory, reference to case before the courts, do not all apply. Not that I am sure if any of them does, which is exactly what your debunking of five of them shows.

It is not really a "complain[t] about police", is it? It is much bigger than that. Not just dobbing in a useless copper on the beat

And then it gets vomitous:

.".. without the permission of their family or them. We've hidden your petition to avoid causing any distress to the M family." Diddums

And round and round the mulberry bush we go again.

Wondering if a direct quote from Sutton is the way to go next time. He might have exaggerated his story because he was pissed off that he wasn't asked to do it. IMO. Not assigning motive - just an idea.

(Sorry I don't know why this text is shadowed (maybe cos I did a cut and paste for the Diddums paragraph.)

Anyway, Jill et al, so sorry that all your work (volume and quality) has been discarded because either (a) it was considered inconsequential by the filtering staff or (b) is was considered of great importance by others. And, for either of those reasons, sent to oblivion.

My field is science not law so this might be a dumb question - what about FOI on petition titles? Or something anything.

Is there not one journalist in the UK who is on to this case? We get the opposite here - journalists everywhere sharing their views of current and cold cases.

by Guest 12.03.20 12:32

Damn and blast these people. They probably invented their reasons for refusing the petition. Can we try again?

by Doug D 12.03.20 12:44

All a bit strange.

None of the five reasons given apply but:

We can't publish petitions that refer to active police investigations, and cannot publish petitions about individuals without the permission of their family or them. We've hidden your petition to avoid causing any distress to the McCann family.

technically the first bit of this clearly does, although quite how 'active' Grange really is, is debatable, but whilst the funding continues...............

What is the last bit even about?

The petition has nothing to do with an individual, it's the Met's conduct the petition is about.

by crusader 12.03.20 15:48

I wonder what else they have hidden, would it distress us by any chance?

by sandancer 12.03.20 18:05

" We've hidden your petition to avoid causing distress to the Mccann family "

Heaven forbid anyone causing distress to the sainted ones !

After all they allegedly caused distress to their 3 children by allegedly leaving them alone in a locked/unlocked apartment for 5 nights resulting in Madeleines alleged " abduction"

What about the " false , libelous , defamatory comments " made by MSM on a regular basis about the PJ and Amaral , plus the references to those of us who question the McCanns story as " trolls and haters !"

This is basically a " go away , don't bother us because you'll get nowhere , understand ?" reply . Anyone who thinks there isn't a huge cover up has to be seriously deluded .

New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Re: New MMRG Petition: “Hold an Inquiry into the conduct of the Met’s Madeleine McCann investigation”

Log in for more topics