Re: Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

by Dr What 04.05.17 16:43

Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Not only are the MET made to look foolish, but it appears that they have been ordered to look foolish.What trust now in the Police?

by init 04.05.17 22:39

Colin is seemingly busy with the channel 5 programme "Soham Revisited: 15 years on"

by Phoebe 05.05.17 0:06

It's hard to know whether the Met have ended up in this embarrassing position by accident or design. Whichever, the outcome is the same - they look like a gov. lapdog sent off to chase its own tail. The ridiculous, repeated claims of new leads and last throws of dice may see the case shelved to gather dust but the Met's reputation has been damaged. They seem to have lost all control of this investigation. Years spent chasing Tannerman only to discover a dead end. Years telling us of child trafficking and paedophiles only to fall back on the ludicrous suggestion of burglars who decided to take a kid instead, as you do, just for the hell of it. Despite their criticism of the P.J. handling of the case the Met have ended up not only down a cul de sac but shown up as tame nincompoops who were ordered down a dead end and hadn't the guts to demur. Throw into that the waste of £12 million of taxpayers money and its hard to see how anyone could view Op.Grange as anything other than a farce carried out by willing stooges. A bad few years at the office.

by **Jill Havern** 05.05.17 9:39

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

by Nina 05.05.17 11:29

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The words professional opinion would have been good.

by Verdi 05.05.17 11:51

Phoebe wrote: ....but the Met's reputation has been damaged

I don't think they will suffer any lasting damage through this monumental farce - they've got away with far worse crimes in the past. There will always be corruption in public office, the higher the rank the more corrupt - you only need look to this case to see how they are all covering each other.

A decent retired cop is of course another matter - a force to be reckoned with smilie

!

Tomorrow this will be yesterday's news - come to think it already is, far outweighed by Kardashian's bum, the Duke of Edinburgh's retirement and of course the local elections leading up to a general election next month.

Madeleine who?

by Verdi 05.05.17 12:07

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ALL possibilities were looked at and swiftly eliminated by the PJ because there was no evidence - as Gerry McCann so frequently likes to point out.

It was only when the PJ investigation started to focus on the McCanns and their group of friends that Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case. Everything was going according to plan up until then, the UK establishment and the McCann team were in control of the investigation - and then along came Eddie and Keela..

fan

If Colin Sutton has been following the case as he claims, he would be aware of this. Why is he then indirectly reinforcing the Metropolitan Police agenda i.e. totally ignoring the diligent work of the PJ, other than to criticise their every move?

by Verdi 05.05.17 12:19

Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.

Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

by pennylane 05.05.17 13:27

Verdi wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

Not everyone reads McCann related stuff on the internet, and many wouldn't even know about the wording of the Remit.

For years some have argued the word 'Abduction' in the Remit was a loosely descriptive word that people were reading too much into, and that it didn't in any way mean Operation Grange would not go back to square one. Well Sutton has now categorically confirmed he was given a foreboding warning from high up the chain that the McCanns were 'strictly off limits.' And Rowley has been forced to publicly admit Op Grange haven't investigated the McCanns at all!

This is the most damning confirmation of facts to hit MSM re this case for a very long time (imo). Furthermore, even if you believe Maddie was abducted by a stranger, you will have trouble understanding that if the PJ's initial investigation was so 'botched,' why Op Grange wouldn't go right back to square one in painstaking detail.

by dartinghero 05.05.17 14:44

pennylane wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

Not everyone reads McCann related stuff on the internet, and many wouldn't even know about the wording of the Remit.

For years some have argued the word 'Abduction' in the Remit was a loosely descriptive word that people were reading too much into, and that it didn't in any way mean Operation Grange would not go back to square one. Well Sutton has now categorically confirmed he was given a foreboding warning from high up the chain that the McCanns were 'strictly off limits.' And Rowley has been forced to publicly admit Op Grange haven't investigated the McCanns at all!

This is the most damning confirmation of facts to hit MSM re this case for a very long time (imo). Furthermore, even if you believe Maddie was abducted by a stranger, you will have trouble understanding that if the PJ's initial investigation was so 'botched,' why Op Grange wouldn't go right back to square one in painstaking detail.

I agree, pennylane. I think most people who rely on MSM for their news hears that Op Grange are reinvestigating the "disappearance of MM" and doesn't think any more about it and it would be very unusual if they went looking online for the wording of the remit. It may have been written about on the web a lot in certain quarters but there is an absolute sh*t -ton of stuff written on the web about MM - for someone edging towards the "unbelievers" (for want of a better term) I think it can be quite overwhelming and difficult to know where to start; there must be quite a lot of trees that get lost in the woods! This is why I recommend Peter Mac's book and Richard D Hall's excellent films to people who are interested - there is an awful lot of information in them, well presented and in one place, and when either or both of these are under their belt they can look in more depth at the greater detail. We have to remember for some, their only MM info is MSM or people gobbing off on facebewk. At some point, something will jar so much that maybe they look further?
Maybe even something as flimsy as the bloke from TOWIE expressing his opinion....

by Verdi 05.05.17 16:20

dartinghero wrote:
Perhaps - and I'm just chucking this into the ring - he is supposed to be the vehicle that drags some of the less pro-TM stuff into mainstream discussion. I believe it was philipanders (sorry, if I've got this wrong) who mentioned on another thread that there is a point where interested parties provide support until they realise they are being made to look like tossers...and then things change. Is this too optimistic?

Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers? They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit. Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser. He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell. Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact. You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'! Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé. Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!! I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

by pennylane 05.05.17 17:02

dartinghero wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

Not everyone reads McCann related stuff on the internet, and many wouldn't even know about the wording of the Remit.

For years some have argued the word 'Abduction' in the Remit was a loosely descriptive word that people were reading too much into, and that it didn't in any way mean Operation Grange would not go back to square one. Well Sutton has now categorically confirmed he was given a foreboding warning from high up the chain that the McCanns were 'strictly off limits.' And Rowley has been forced to publicly admit Op Grange haven't investigated the McCanns at all!

This is the most damning confirmation of facts to hit MSM re this case for a very long time (imo). Furthermore, even if you believe Maddie was abducted by a stranger, you will have trouble understanding that if the PJ's initial investigation was so 'botched,' why Op Grange wouldn't go right back to square one in painstaking detail.
I agree, pennylane. I think most people who rely on MSM for their news hears that Op Grange are reinvestigating the "disappearance of MM" and doesn't think any more about it and it would be very unusual if they went looking online for the wording of the remit. It may have been written about on the web a lot in certain quarters but there is an absolute sh*t -ton of stuff written on the web about MM - for someone edging towards the "unbelievers" (for want of a better term) I think it can be quite overwhelming and difficult to know where to start; there must be quite a lot of trees that get lost in the woods! This is why I recommend Peter Mac's book and Richard D Hall's excellent films to people who are interested - there is an awful lot of information in them, well presented and in one place, and when either or both of these are under their belt they can look in more depth at the greater detail. We have to remember for some, their only MM info is MSM or people gobbing off on facebewk. At some point, something will jar so much that maybe they look further?
Maybe even something as flimsy as the bloke from TOWIE expressing his opinion....

Yes also Goncalo Amaral's book and video are an excellent source from the horses mouth as it were, and hopefully he will release his new book in English in the near future too! It must indeed be very challenging for those newly curious, as even those of us that have studied this case for ten long years still disagree on vital aspects of it, but if people do wish to invest the time, there is plenty of well-constructed information at their fingertips as you suggest, for them to peruse and digest.

by Nina 05.05.17 17:10

Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:
Perhaps - and I'm just chucking this into the ring - he is supposed to be the vehicle that drags some of the less pro-TM stuff into mainstream discussion. I believe it was philipanders (sorry, if I've got this wrong) who mentioned on another thread that there is a point where interested parties provide support until they realise they are being made to look like tossers...and then things change. Is this too optimistic?
Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers? They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit. Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser. He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell. Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact. You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'! Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé. Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!! I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

by jeanmonroe 05.05.17 17:23

"..........and hopefully he will release his new book in English"
------------------------------------------------
The McCan'ts do NOT 'own' the English 'language'!

GA CAN 'publish/print' his book, in English, in Portugal. (and any other European or other world countries)

I'd imagine it would make 'good reading' for the English 'tourists' that are in, going to be in, Portugal, this summer.

And there will be 'more of them' this year because of the 'toubles' in Turkey, Egypt etc.,

Are the McCan'ts going to 'employ' their own 'security' staff (DE/JG/AC) at UK airports and seaports, to 'stop tourists', and 'confiscate' their GA book/s, printed in English, in Portugal, from 'getting in to' the UK?

Are the McCan'ts going to 'order' T May/A Fudd to 'deploy' troops to the airports/seaports or 'their faces will be plastered all over the Scum,' until they do?

by pennylane 05.05.17 17:30

Nina wrote:
Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:
Perhaps - and I'm just chucking this into the ring - he is supposed to be the vehicle that drags some of the less pro-TM stuff into mainstream discussion. I believe it was philipanders (sorry, if I've got this wrong) who mentioned on another thread that there is a point where interested parties provide support until they realise they are being made to look like tossers...and then things change. Is this too optimistic?
Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers? They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit. Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser. He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell. Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact. You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'! Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé. Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!! I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

Possibly Nina, also If Goncalo Amaral's substantial Met donations to his defense fund are anything to go by, it could be that elements within the Met are disgusted with this whole McCann of worms they've been handed to whitewash, and want the unpalatable truth known!

by **Jill Havern** 05.05.17 18:23

jeanmonroe wrote:Are the McCan'ts going to 'employ' their own 'security' staff (DE/JG/AC) at UK airports and seaports, to 'stop tourists', and 'confiscate' their GA book/s, printed in English, in Portugal, from 'getting in to' the UK?

Are the McCan'ts going to 'order' T May/A Fudd to 'deploy' troops to the airports/seaports or 'their faces will be plastered all over the Scum,' until they do?

Stop it will you?!

Hey! They could even train their own book sniffing dogs!

by willowthewisp 05.05.17 19:17

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Are the McCan'ts going to 'employ' their own 'security' staff (DE/JG/AC) at UK airports and seaports, to 'stop tourists', and 'confiscate' their GA book/s, printed in English, in Portugal, from 'getting in to' the UK?

Are the McCan'ts going to 'order' T May/A Fudd to 'deploy' troops to the airports/seaports or 'their faces will be plastered all over the Scum,' until they do?
Stop it will you?!

Hey! They could even train their own book sniffing dogs!

They already have,Gamble and Brunt,remember the restricted pamphlets,big Jim?

by Verdi 05.05.17 20:46

Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

Nina, Colin Sutton retired from the Metropolitan Police in January 2011 - that's over six years ago!

by Nina 05.05.17 23:53

Verdi wrote:
Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.
Nina, Colin Sutton retired from the Metropolitan Police in January 2011 - that's over six years ago!

Sorry Verdi, I wasn't aware of when he retired so my offer is not applicable.

by dartinghero 06.05.17 0:09

Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:
Perhaps - and I'm just chucking this into the ring - he is supposed to be the vehicle that drags some of the less pro-TM stuff into mainstream discussion. I believe it was philipanders (sorry, if I've got this wrong) who mentioned on another thread that there is a point where interested parties provide support until they realise they are being made to look like tossers...and then things change. Is this too optimistic?
Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers? They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit. Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser. He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell. Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact. You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'! Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé. Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!! I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

Thanks for the comments Verdi. The comment about people changing direction when they are made to look like tossers initially made by Phillip Anders upthread was about the high-ups (not supporters as such)and them dictating a change in policy when it no longer becomes tenable for them to hold the previous line.
In a situation like this for example, "new evidence" could suddenly come to light if it suited them to change their position.
With regard to people not taking an interest in the case, I think a lot of people read/listen to the MSM and mutter amongst themselves that "something isn't right" or "how terrible to leave those kids on their own" and then finish their tea break and get back to work or start making dinner or get another pint in. You only have to read the comments under a Daily Mail article on the subject for example. I'm not sure what the tipping point is for people deciding to look further but I would bet there has been a flurry of new users here on the back of it being constantly all over MSM the last couple of weeks. As for not listening to Clarence Mitchell, according to the Richard D Hall films and many contributors on here, so much is "placed" in the MSM, we are all constantly being subjected to it! I'm not being a Pollyanna but I think anything that drags ideas that are not the party line into the MSM must be a good thing.
I take your point that you can't force people to take an interest - the old "horticulture" joke springs to mind!

by Verdi 06.05.17 0:11

Nina wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.
Nina, Colin Sutton retired from the Metropolitan Police in January 2011 - that's over six years ago!
Sorry Verdi, I wasn't aware of when he retired so my offer is not applicable.

There's never been much reason to take particular notice of him, he's never really been at the forefront of the case has he.

I think there's something of the Mark Williams-Thomas about Colin Sutton. Pops up when there's an opening, offering confusing comments and opinions, then disappears again until the next time.

Could be wrong, we shall see, all will be revealed - or not as the case may be.

by Verdi 06.05.17 0:25

dartinghero wrote:I'm not being a Pollyanna but I think anything that drags ideas that are not the party line into the MSM must be a good thing.

I too am talking of the higher echalons, it is they who are responsible for the conspiracy - not the proletariat.

As regards the establishment changing direction if the need be, I think that rather depends on the nature of required cover-up. Some situations are insurmountable and must be smothered at all cost - this concept I believe applies in the case of Madeleine McCann.

In conclusion, I'm all for destroying the abysmal image of the UK media and their atrocious standard of reportage but there's nothing to be gained if the contrary argument presented has no foundation - that can only have a negative effect by equaling the source you are fighting.

by plebgate 06.05.17 9:24

RE. Colin and why it took six years to say anything.

IMO it's still good that he has come forward now. We all know what it's like to feel it's better to keep our mouths shut at times especially if one feels a court case might ensue.

It could be the case that Colin has been reading here for a while and taken serious note of CMOMM researchers, video makers and members have had to say.

Anyway I hope he makes a return and as Tony Bennett posted early on in this thread if he does return let's give him the benefit of the doubt, listen and be polite.

by Irene 2 06.05.17 13:53

Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:I'm not being a Pollyanna but I think anything that drags ideas that are not the party line into the MSM must be a good thing.
I too am talking of the higher echalons, it is they who are responsible for the conspiracy - not the proletariat.

As regards the establishment changing direction if the need be, I think that rather depends on the nature of required cover-up. Some situations are insurmountable and must be smothered at all cost - this concept I believe applies in the case of Madeleine McCann.

In conclusion, I'm all for destroying the abysmal image of the UK media and their atrocious standard of reportage but there's nothing to be gained if the contrary argument presented has no foundation - that can only have a negative effect by equaling the source you are fighting.

So do I. It couldn't have been made any clearer and the McCanns have exploited it mercilessly. Did their protectors expect such greedy and attention seeking loose cannons? Short of a confession, someone in the public eye like Amaral with the guts to fight TM and their protectors is the only way the truth will be fully exposed.