Hunt for Madeleine needs more cash

by maebee 16.09.17 23:36

GordonGarner wrote:I was in a public place today when this news came on a tv, a discussion broke out and I was simply stunned to hear that all the people discussing it seemed to take it as read that MM was abducted. I interjected to point out that there was actually not a shred of hard evidence that an abduction took place. The conversation went rather quiet and I slipped away.I was left with the impression that after my departure I was probably referred too in a negative way. The public have been duped on this story in a gigantic way.
My own hunch has almost leaned towards feeling that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax. Its just about the only thing that makes sense. (IMO).

I feel your pain Gordon. I have made myself very unpopular with various friends and acquaintances over the past ten years whenever the subject of MM came up. I could never let someone away with "Madeleine's abduction". Madeleine's disappearance is a fact. Madeleine's abduction is not. I always ask people to read the official police files but the British media have done such a good Mcjob that joe public thinks the PJ screwed up and that SNr. Amaral is a "bungling cop". aaagh

by Guest 16.09.17 23:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:So what are they watching ?

The clock!

by MayMuse 17.09.17 6:35

Get'emGonçalo wrote:So what are they watching ?

The Portuguese appeal court and Supreme court are over
ECHR is years away and in any event has nothing to do with anything except their reputation.
What are they watching

And why does it take 4 of them to do it.
And meanwhile THEY ARE NOT SEARCHING FOR MADELEINE
Not in Hlelish lairs, and no longer in shallow graves in PdL.

And delaying tactics to not pay their dues to G.A.?

by nglfi 17.09.17 8:45

GordonGarner wrote:I was in a public place today when this news came on a tv, a discussion broke out and I was simply stunned to hear that all the people discussing it seemed to take it as read that MM was abducted. I interjected to point out that there was actually not a shred of hard evidence that an abduction took place. The conversation went rather quiet and I slipped away.I was left with the impression that after my departure I was probably referred too in a negative way. The public have been duped on this story in a gigantic way.
My own hunch has almost leaned towards feeling that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax. Its just about the only thing that makes sense. (IMO).

It's not all bad- almost everyone I've heard talking about this case in recent years is of the opinion that the parents are responsible. There's been a definite shift in the last few years I think, I remember debating with people and it getting quite uncomfortable previously, but anecdotally I'd say there is a greater awareness now among some groups of people

by **Jill Havern** 17.09.17 22:00

nglfi wrote:
GordonGarner wrote:I was in a public place today when this news came on a tv, a discussion broke out and I was simply stunned to hear that all the people discussing it seemed to take it as read that MM was abducted. I interjected to point out that there was actually not a shred of hard evidence that an abduction took place. The conversation went rather quiet and I slipped away.I was left with the impression that after my departure I was probably referred too in a negative way. The public have been duped on this story in a gigantic way.
My own hunch has almost leaned towards feeling that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax. Its just about the only thing that makes sense. (IMO).
It's not all bad- almost everyone I've heard talking about this case in recent years is of the opinion that the parents are responsible. There's been a definite shift in the last few years I think, I remember debating with people and it getting quite uncomfortable previously, but anecdotally I'd say there is a greater awareness now among some groups of people

Well quite so.
Among those who can read and think ?

by Casey5 18.09.17 13:14

"nglfi -It's not all bad- almost everyone I've heard talking about this case in recent years is of the opinion that the parents are responsible."

Yes but mostly it's people saying the McCanns are responsible because they left the kids alone thus allowing the abductor to take Madeleine - less usual for people to think there was no abduction.

by nglfi 18.09.17 15:56

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree, that is mostly the case. It might be because I work in quite a blunt male environment but I've heard a few people outright use the M word. I of course am not suggesting anything like that took place! It's just refreshing to not hear the media mantra not repeated. To say the parents are guilty of neglect by leaving them alone, seems to be the new acceptable 'alternative' media mantra

by **Jill Havern** 18.09.17 16:31

nglfi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree, that is mostly the case. It might be because I work in quite a blunt male environment but I've heard a few people outright use the M word. I of course am not suggesting anything like that took place! It's just refreshing to not hear the media mantra not repeated. To say the parents are guilty of neglect by leaving them alone, seems to be the new acceptable 'alternative' media mantra

And to quote Lizzy: "If neglect is the (new acceptable 'alternative') excuse, what are they hiding?"

by Casey5 18.09.17 20:41

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] -"And to quote Lizzy: "If neglect is the (new acceptable 'alternative') excuse, what are they hiding?"

It's what the McCanns have pushed at us from day one when they realised that without admitting neglect (but only the tiniest amount cos they were checking every half hour and it was exactly like the listening service provided on other holidays) that there could not have been an abduction. Over the years the "neglect" aspect has stuck and so has the "abduction" giving many people the opportunity of calling them bad parents for leaving their kids alone and allowing the abduction to take place. The McCanns have, very cleverly, hammered these two points home at every opportunity and most people don't look any further and accept the neglect and abduction as being facts.
Poor Madeleine.

by **Jill Havern** 18.09.17 20:49

nglfi wrote:To say the parents are guilty of neglect by leaving them alone, seems to be the new acceptable 'alternative' media mantra

It is the one Team McCann have been working hard on for the past 10+ years.
Right from the start the Tapas 7 helped in the conspiracy by pretending they too had been criminally neglecting 8 chidren for 5 nights in a row,
even when the children were said to have been suffering relatively serious medical conditions.

The PJ and BritPol didn’t buy it then and still don’t, but the British press, told what to say by Bell Pottinger and Mendax Maximus Mitchell have been pushing it so hard without wavering
that it has become part of the general background “knowledge"

Actually very clever and worth every ha’peny of the £ 500,000
When people stop believing in the Abduction they are left with neglect.

But it amounts to the same thing. Madeleine is still ‘taken away’ by somebody whether the parents are to blame or not.
It actually doesn’t alter the story, merely the focus.

And the Portuguese know they can’t prosecute them for something which firstly they didn’t DO
and secondly lacks an important legal ingredient, which we duscussed a hundred years ago.
They would be aquitted on the facts or on the law, or both.

In a civilsed world we do not prosecute people for crimes we know they haven’t committed.
The McCanns and their legal team know that.

by polyenne 19.09.17 7:07

If all this is to be accepted as fact, I refuse to believe it can have been concocted/agreed/arranged/implemented in a few days.....5 at most.

That then leads to the deduction that the whole charade.....:

1. Had been pre-planned for some nefarious reason

2. Had been pre-planned as some Governmental exercise (think "thought police")

3. Was carried out by a very large group of very clever people for other reasons not yet understood

by kinell 19.09.17 8:57

polyenne wrote:If all this is to be accepted as fact, I refuse to believe it can have been concocted/agreed/arranged/implemented in a few days.....5 at most.

That then leads to the deduction that the whole charade.....:

1. Had been pre-planned for some nefarious reason

2. Had been pre-planned as some Governmental exercise (think "thought police")

3. Was carried out by a very large group of very clever people for other reasons not yet understood

Would that mean there's now only two options (as Redwood said "She's either alive or, sadly, dead")?

1. Dead = sacrificed for charade (a pre-planned charade rules out accident)

2. Alive = and as Maddie is now 14, she would have been told by Kate and Gerry about the charade years ago because she would have seen all the media coverage about herself, her parents, her siblings, wider family and is now part of the charade herself? Unless she really is holed up somewhere in a never-searched-for-lair in the lawless hills without access to School, TV, radio, newspapers, internet. Cruel in the extreme.

Unless Maddie really didn't exist.

thinking

by polyenne 19.09.17 9:11

For some time, based on the intricacies of the plot and the sheer number of assets that swung into action so very quickly, I believe that there had to have been an element (and possibly a large element) of pre-planning.

I believe that Madeleine was a "chosen one" that week but for what I cannot fathom. Whether her death (if that is indeed what befell her) was probable/low risk/high risk, based on whatever she was chosen for, is debatable but when her "disappearance" did happen, things moved very swiftly indeed.

____________________________________________________________________________

Members are asked to please keep on topic. Thank you.

Mod

by **sharonl** 23.09.17 15:39

And they want more money to assist two prime suspects - unbelievable.

Cuts will leave police helpless to fight terrorism, warns Met chief

UK’s top officers say forces are overstretched and will have to ‘make unpalatable choices’ about what they do

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

Friday 22 September 2017 12.50 BST Last modified on Friday 22 September 2017 14.42 BST

The chief of the Metropolitan police has backed a warning by the head of the National [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Chiefs’ Council that cuts to police budgets will leave officers unable to counter the terrorist threat.
Echoing [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], who warned that investigating terrorism was leaving police overstretched, Cressida Dick said her force was under huge strain after London was hit by four attacks in less than six months.
Dick began work as Met commissioner after the Westminster attack and has led the force through attacks at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. She told LBC radio that an “enormous” number of officers was needed to respond to each.

Referring to experts’ claim that the spate of attacks represents a “shift” rather than a “spike” in the threat, she said: “That puts a strain on not just the counterterrorism police, but neighbourhood officers and all our officers and staff.
“In the long run, if we continue with this level of threat, which is what people are predicting, I agree with Sara – this is not sustainable for my force.”
Saving people’s lives and stopping terrorism will always be the highest priority, Dick said. But she warned the Met “will have to make some very hard choices” about responding to emergency calls.
“We’ve got emergency calls going up, we’ve got crime going up nationally and in London,” Dick said. “Violent crime is a particular problem. It’s already putting a huge strain on the system.”
Thornton has criticised a plan to cut the police allocation of the counter-terrorism budget by 7.2% in the next three years. “When the volume and nature of a threat is growing alarmingly, that is a real concern,” she wrote in a blogpost.
Advertisement

The funding squeeze risked damaging neighbourhood policing and the trust necessary for people to give officers information to catch terrorists, Thornton said.
“Police chiefs will do all they can to protect the public from terrorism. We will make choices about what we prioritise and where we invest. Some of these choices may be difficult and unpalatable to the public but we can make them if necessary,” she added.
The intervention from two of the the UK’s most senior police officers comes as the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which represents rank-and-file officers, accused Theresa May of deploying “smoke and mirrors” over a “derisory” pay award.
“You expect officers to run towards terrorists one minute and then turn your backs when we ask for help so they can afford to feed their families,” wrote representatives of the 43 federations in England and Wales.
A pay rise of 2% “with no extra money to pay for it means it is the public who will yet again suffer and get even less of a service”, they said. At prime minister’s questions last week, May declined to answer [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
“A 2% rise is not a rise when it has to come from existing policing budgets. It’s a disgrace you have dressed it up as a pay rise,” the federations wrote.
“We don’t want meaningless platitudes. We want a properly funded and well-resourced police service. The public rightly want and expect this. For the sake of those who put their lives on the line for the public we demand you address these injustices and give us answers.”