The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Mm11

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Regist10

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 24.12.09 10:51

@Slartibartfast wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:

Make up your mind! Are people supposed to believe the media hook line sinker or be selective? One minute you were saying what the press printed was ‘good to stand’, the next you were saying ‘be selective’ - you can't have it both ways!

People (be it netizen or public) will be selective whether you like it or not and they will be selective based on their own discerning power, not what anyone want them to believe in particular, or to suit their agenda - as simple as that.

Well it helps when the general public have access to the actual information so that they can form an opinion.
Most people's opinions are influenced by what they digest either online or through the media reports.
Pools of blood and clumps of hair tend to paint a different picture to what was actually found, for example.
Discerning power is based on the information available. If that information is wrong/corrupted then the conclusions drawn will reflect that.

Plus you have to take into account the timing and the context, for a couple of months in the uk press it was all, poor maddie, poor parents (of course in portugal the smears started the first week!), then there was no new news, the investigation team woudn't talk on the record, the parents couldn't talk other than to say look for our child, help us please and so the steady income for the press was running dry even though there was a huge appetite in the british public for news about the case, at which point the press decided to just go for it big style, in the uk they started gently by reporting what the PT press was reporting, in a sort of, ooh how awful, look at what they are saying style. this flew off the shelves and so the game continued, until soon they weren't even having to distance themselves by saying, 'ooh how awful, look what they are being accused of now' but instead just as straight news as though it were factual. By then the PT press were doing the same thing, reporting what the uk press were reporting. So you ended up with un unnamed source reporting something damaging about the Mccanns, this would appear in portugal, then would appear in the uk and then woulod be reprinted in portugal almost as though the uk printing it had confirmed it as legitimate news.

None of it was and virtually all of it would make anyone suspicious of this couples behaviour unless you were willing to dissect the quotes and were a bit aware of tabloid games.

It was truly shameful, even if all of these things had been shown to be true, it would have ruled out any sort of fair jury trial because the public was completely sucked in. As it was when they were cleared of committing any crimes, released from arguido status, along with Mr Murat and the files were released, the horror became even worse, it was virtually all rubbish, there was no bodily fluids, no 100% dna match, no lies, no changes in stories, Jane Tanner was finally proven to have been consistent in her witness statement etc

There had been a good part of a year of rubbish in the press and that can't be undone by an admission of fault and a small fine (small in the context of the money made on the back of the lies initially). So sure people can make up their own minds, but a great number of them can't because they were fed and believed lies and suspicions and told again and again and again, that the Mccanns were not right, and no-one can ever tell those people otherwise, that actually they acted as anyone would expect and held it together in public and broke down in private, because it has been adopted as their own belief now.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by preciousramotswe on 24.12.09 11:38

@aiyoyo wrote:
badmanners wrote:and so far the investigation files were prevented from reaching the mainstream press by the mccanns with their threat of libel.

That's just nonsense.
The mainstream press had no intention of publishing long extracts from the files on the grounds of space, not libel.

Wow, are you saying short of copying and pasting the file in entirety, none of them in the Press has an ounce of intelligence to summarise points or even write up their own piece based on info? Wow, how did they survive for so long? Space constraints and not libel fear - really?

A few did summarise key points from the file. You just didn't like which bits!!!

They published edited snippets from the Prosecutor's report, because that was punchy and because it cut through the crap.

It told it like it is - there is no evidence of any wrongdoing that could lead to criminal charges against any of the arguidos.
That was good enough for the papers, and really it should have been good enough for everyone.



Really! You take in EVERYTHING the press doze out - hook line, and sinker? Wow, Good for you! What is good enough for you may not be good for others - thanks goodness there are others who still have discerning ability! Otherwise, democracy and freedom of rights would go down the drain.
Not the press - don't be dozy!! The PROSECUTORS REPORT - see i did it in caps so you get the message


As for those of us interested enough to actually read the translations of the files - well, what's stopping us?
Nothing, that's what.

And, how do you propose those without pc or internet read the electronic version?
But, that’s not the point! Why should they feel a need to suppress those info? Explain their libel of blog/forum, MF and Amaral then? Anyone who attempted to put it out to daylight was cater-rucked.
They didn't suppress anything - that's just a lazy copy out complaint because most people accept the Prosecutor's report as it stands.

Even the released investigation files contained a Report by a PJ officer that Maddie is dead and her parents possibly involved. Now, why did the Public Ministry deem it was appropriate to include in the release? Could it possibly be that it was indeed part of the investigation process and therefore good to stand because that fact cannot be altered.

It was part of the investigation process in SEPTEMBER 2007 and explained why they were made arguidos. But it wasn't subsequently backed up by evidence, and itself contains a number of inaccuracies. Actually it's a damn good example of why Amaral and his mates - Tavares being one of them - got into such a damn mess.

And, you seriously think the mccanns will allow the press to print that? Even discounting the truth in that, the fact remained police did take that route, why was there a need to hide the process? Could it possibly be because the mccanns were afraid - of what if it was only a process? Because of their tendency to libel people every direction, you can't stop people positing that maybe guilt plays a part in their desire to suppress those info. Put it this way, if there was no truth in that process and mainstream did print it they could always counter it with the final PM’s conclusion, just like people did on the internet - what’s there to stop the mccanns?


You are OBSESSED with the idea that the files were suppressed - it's idiocy. It just isn't true. I think you must have been smoking some of Sym's stash.

The problem has come with the interpretation of the files, and the repetition of false media stories, such as put about by Amaral and Tony. It's them that are subject to libel proceedings, not the files themselves.
And please don't tell me that what those two have written is only 'what's in the files'.

It isn't, as anyone who has had a good look at the key points from all of them can soon see.

Make up your mind! Are people supposed to believe the media hook line sinker or be selective? One minute you were saying what the press printed was ‘good to stand’, the next you were saying ‘be selective’ - you can't have it both ways!

People (be it netizen or public) will be selective whether you like it or not and they will be selective based on their own discerning power, not what anyone want them to believe in particular, or to suit their agenda - as simple as that.

And the vast majority have taken the key points of the Prosecutor's report, and believe that the McCanns have been investigated and exonerated. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Now all that's left is for Amaral to realise he doesn't actually understand the finer points of DNA analysis and admit he made mistakes, and we can all move on.
avatar
preciousramotswe

Posts : 269
Join date : 2009-12-02

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 12:19

badmanners wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
badmanners wrote:and so far the investigation files were prevented from reaching the mainstream press by the mccanns with their threat of libel.

That's just nonsense.
The mainstream press had no intention of publishing long extracts from the files on the grounds of space, not libel.

Wow, are you saying short of copying and pasting the file in entirety, none of them in the Press has an ounce of intelligence to summarise points or even write up their own piece based on info? Wow, how did they survive for so long? Space constraints and not libel fear - really?

A few did summarise key points from the file. You just didn't like which bits!!!

They published edited snippets from the Prosecutor's report, because that was punchy and because it cut through the crap.

It told it like it is - there is no evidence of any wrongdoing that could lead to criminal charges against any of the arguidos.
That was good enough for the papers, and really it should have been good enough for everyone.



Really! You take in EVERYTHING the press doze out - hook line, and sinker? Wow, Good for you! What is good enough for you may not be good for others - thanks goodness there are others who still have discerning ability! Otherwise, democracy and freedom of rights would go down the drain.
Not the press - don't be dozy!! The PROSECUTORS REPORT - see i did it in caps so you get the message


As for those of us interested enough to actually read the translations of the files - well, what's stopping us?
Nothing, that's what.

And, how do you propose those without pc or internet read the electronic version?
But, that’s not the point! Why should they feel a need to suppress those info? Explain their libel of blog/forum, MF and Amaral then? Anyone who attempted to put it out to daylight was cater-rucked.
They didn't suppress anything - that's just a lazy copy out complaint because most people accept the Prosecutor's report as it stands.

Even the released investigation files contained a Report by a PJ officer that Maddie is dead and her parents possibly involved. Now, why did the Public Ministry deem it was appropriate to include in the release? Could it possibly be that it was indeed part of the investigation process and therefore good to stand because that fact cannot be altered.

It was part of the investigation process in SEPTEMBER 2007 and explained why they were made arguidos. But it wasn't subsequently backed up by evidence, and itself contains a number of inaccuracies. Actually it's a damn good example of why Amaral and his mates - Tavares being one of them - got into such a damn mess.

And, you seriously think the mccanns will allow the press to print that? Even discounting the truth in that, the fact remained police did take that route, why was there a need to hide the process? Could it possibly be because the mccanns were afraid - of what if it was only a process? Because of their tendency to libel people every direction, you can't stop people positing that maybe guilt plays a part in their desire to suppress those info. Put it this way, if there was no truth in that process and mainstream did print it they could always counter it with the final PM’s conclusion, just like people did on the internet - what’s there to stop the mccanns?


You are OBSESSED with the idea that the files were suppressed - it's idiocy. It just isn't true. I think you must have been smoking some of Sym's stash.

The problem has come with the interpretation of the files, and the repetition of false media stories, such as put about by Amaral and Tony. It's them that are subject to libel proceedings, not the files themselves.
And please don't tell me that what those two have written is only 'what's in the files'.

It isn't, as anyone who has had a good look at the key points from all of them can soon see.

Make up your mind! Are people supposed to believe the media hook line sinker or be selective? One minute you were saying what the press printed was ‘good to stand’, the next you were saying ‘be selective’ - you can't have it both ways!

People (be it netizen or public) will be selective whether you like it or not and they will be selective based on their own discerning power, not what anyone want them to believe in particular, or to suit their agenda - as simple as that.

And the vast majority have taken the key points of the Prosecutor's report, and believe that the McCanns have been investigated and exonerated. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Now all that's left is for Amaral to realise he doesn't actually understand the finer points of DNA analysis and admit he made mistakes, and we can all move on.


Well, you may chose bits to believe to suit yourself, but don’t judge people by your standard!
It’s not about people’s like or dislike - rather it’s about people’s discerning ability which you seemed to have an inability to grasp! Its well know that Press’s main concern is about toeing the line and most importantly profit margin more so than absolute accuracies!

As for Dozy, you must be refering to yourself! First you said Press’ words should be good enough, then you meant prosecutors’ report? Make up your mind! BTW, the Prosecutor’s Report also stated ‘Maddie is most likely dead’. Did the mccanns protest? NO! Did they object that AG’s statement would hamper the search for her? NO! Why not? Could it just be that their paramount concern was more about lifting their arguido status than about finding Maddie? Yet it was within their legal right to ask for the case to remain open – isn’t it obvious why they failed to do so? More concerned about their public image than Maddie – was their action or rather non-action normal of parents of missing child?

So, what do you think of their latest hire in Portugal to lift their image – Lift Consultants I believe it was called? What has lifting their image got to do with the search they appealed to the masses. Are they conceding their image has been dragging the floor for a long while – they have only themselves to blame for that imo. If finding Maddie was paramount, why didn’t they knock on the PJ’s door while in PDL and ask for the latest development – how are they supposed to know whether there was any or not if they didn’t ask? Wouldn’t they want to know anyway? Had they done that, then that action alone would be seen in a positive light and is more effective in lifiting their image than hiring 10 lift consultants! Now, why didn’t they do that - could it well be because the answer is already a given which they knew very well?

When you said most people, I take it is relative to you and not in the true sense of the word as in statistically proven. Yeah, you are singing to a minority group perhaps!

Did they sue Tavares or Prosecutor for stating Maddie is likely dead – No! Why not? Could it be because that was a natural part of the investigation and natural conclusion from evidence? Why then are they suing others for quoting it? Could it be to contain their ruined reputation? Why should they dictate to people which bit of info to quote, or to believe for that matter to suit their agenda, when they could not stop the Official investigators from investigating them or releasing those info? It seems you’re OBSSESSED about the Prosecutor’s report, yet failing to point it out in it’s entirety. Taken the entire files in it entirety, your argument falls flat on its face.


Well, most people also accept the Tavares’ Report as it stands whether you like it or not! Just as they accept the PM’s Report that there were no evidence to indict the mccanns, and just as they accept the PM’s statement that Maddie is likely dead. Just as they also accept that those concluding statements in no way represent the mccanns were exonerated. Just as they accept the mccanns were let off arguido status as the case had to shelved because evidence is not conclusive, until new evidence comes to light – as simple as that. What people don’t have to accept is mccann’s abduction theory – people are free to form their own opinion from a wider perspective and not just according to mccanns - Hooray for that – or Justice for Madeleine will not be had!

People like you go on about it being Sept 2007 as if it makes a difference when Tavares’ Report was made. The fact remained it was a report from a police officer, just as surely as the fact remained Maddie disappeared in May 2007! People don’t go on about it has been so long since her disappearance and despite PM’s conclusion she is likely dead, her parents continue to spin the public even now with bogus sightings and sob stories! I don’t see why the date of Tavares’ report should be a contentious issue because it doesn’t change the fact the report existed which incidentally the PM considered valid for inclusion in the release – say it all doesn’t it? Whether mccanns and croonies like it or not, it was a fact that the mccanns were indeed under investigation. You alleged it contained a number of inaccuracies – how did you know that for an absolute? Incidentally, did the Attorney Attorney say it was inaccurate? NO, I don’t believe it was stated any where in the files. Therefore one is inclined to conclude PJ worked on that theory, and not the abduction ( and good investigators never discard it in its entirety either). Surely you are not telling us your allegation was by deduction, then surely equally others are free to deduce it differently – it’s idiotic to think only you can be selective which bit to believe! There is no absolute about it. You may want to quote the PM’s Report, but other people may want to quote the Tavares’ Report; no wrong or right about that – both are facts of the procress files. The value of each is measured in subjective terms, both formed part of the files.

Incidentally, people who like to cite the PM’s report have a tendency to omit PM’s statement that ‘Maddie is likely dead’ as well as a tendency to overlook the mccanns did not object about it! Are these people really seeking justice for Madeleine?

Well, were all the pertinent points in the files published? Press are well known for gunning for the juicy and tantilising bits to sell papers. If it was not suppressed, I don’t know what you want to call it? No matter your opinion, what’s to bet that the moment the press print that, they would be sued off their pants just like they did to Amaral, MF et al. Its idiocy to think otherwise! I will borrow your phrase - you must have been smoking lots of the mccanns’ stash!

The mccanns spinning the vast majority does not equal vast majority believed them, as you purported. Those are two different things altogether, and anyone co-relating them is naïve if not stupid!

Well, Amaral is afterall a criminal investigator for 30 years, and besides, what makes you (a layperson) think you know better then him or the collective portugal judiciary system that went far back in history and where Maddie was not the first missing child they’d handled! What exactly were you purporting?

When you said ‘we can all move on’ – who’s the ‘we’ and move on to what? If the mccanns were trying to elicit public support, they are not going about it the right way. Why not co-operate with the police and campaign it differently? Now that would be considered moving on.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 12:32

Has Rebelo, after having to reinvestigate the case, ever wrote a book saying he thinks the McCanns were involved, after seeing ALL OF THE EVIDENCE available (let's not forget, Amaral was sacked after slating the British police so hasn't access to the FULL evidence has he?)
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 12:46

If the allegation is true that GB had a hand in Amaral's removal, then question has to ask why was Gordon involved and what was the motive?
Anyway, Amaral has a reason for writing the book, and Rebelo didnt - let's put it this way. Also he was in charge during the first few crucial months.

Did he ever claim he had full evidence. He wrote what he knew if I am no wrong, and what he knew were all part of the investigation process and based on evidence what thesis investigators were working on, and the thesis was Maddie is dead and the rest people know.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 12:52

It certainly is true that Amaral had motive to write a book. Money and revenge being 2 of them, oh and the thought of a new jag.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 12:58

@aiyoyo wrote:If the allegation is true that GB had a hand in Amaral's removal, then question has to ask why was Gordon involved and what was the motive?
Anyway, Amaral has a reason for writing the book, and Rebelo didnt - let's put it this way. Also he was in charge during the first few crucial months.

Did he ever claim he had full evidence. He wrote what he knew if I am no wrong, and what he knew were all part of the investigation process and based on evidence what thesis investigators were working on, and the thesis was Maddie is dead and the rest people know.

I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that Gordon Brown was involved in the removal of Amaral. Gordon Brown was involved in the case so far as he acted as one would expect and hope a member of parliament to react when one of the uks citizens is the victim of a horrendous crime in a foreign country.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 13:02

I suppose you are another one who buy the Press story hook line and sinker!

Are you aware the jag was 2nd hand and not new as claimed. Also are you aware it was to replace a old jag he'd already had? I wonder why people are spinning lies about him?

You are entitled to your opinion but there are plenty others who believe he want the truth for Madeleine out there.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 13:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Simple. Because the various facts set out in both '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' are those that have generally been hidden by the mainstream British press. Many people have written to us to thank us for informing them, NOT of our opinions, but of the FACTS

Note:NOT our opinions, but of the FACTS

REPLY: Because, in terms, we were told that if we were unable to prove one single statement in the booklet, because of the uncertainty and complexity of modern libel law, combined with the fact that we were dealing with the most expensive libel lawyers in the country whose clients the McCanns had access to unlimited funds, we faced complete financial ruin. Such is the state of the U.K.'s libel laws which, thankfully, are about to be reformed; they are under review now and are considered to breach the European Convention on Human Rights provisions on freedom of speech

Note: if we were unable to prove one single statement

Look what a contradiction: facts become statements. A fact is a fact and even Carter Ruck can't change the facts, so if true what is stated here, MF had no problem at all to fight Carter Ruck.
You've just confirmed: these are no FACTS!

I have not read the list of errors and inaccuracies in the booklet, written by Nicked. I would love to read it.
But the leaflet is enough for me to know that really no 'fact' is correct.
It is all only in your mind.
The leaflet has been refuted and rejected long time ago.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 13:06

Doesn't matter if the Jag was 20th hand really does it?

He forgot all about the house wth the pool when he was applying for a state handout to pay his legal fees after his immoral earnings (proceeds of the book. sorry) as well didn't he?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 13:11

Raffle wrote:Doesn't matter if the Jag was 20th hand really does it?

He forgot all about the house wth the pool when he was applying for a state handout to pay his legal fees after his immoral earnings (proceeds of the book. sorry) as well didn't he?

So according to you he has no right to buy himself a jag to replace his old jag? Actually you are right it does not matter whether new or 20th hand (as you put it) he has a right to replace his old car if he so wished.

As for the other issue I am not well up on it so cant debate that.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 13:19

tyra wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If the allegation is true that GB had a hand in Amaral's removal, then question has to ask why was Gordon involved and what was the motive?
Anyway, Amaral has a reason for writing the book, and Rebelo didnt - let's put it this way. Also he was in charge during the first few crucial months.

Did he ever claim he had full evidence. He wrote what he knew if I am no wrong, and what he knew were all part of the investigation process and based on evidence what thesis investigators were working on, and the thesis was Maddie is dead and the rest people know.

I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that Gordon Brown was involved in the removal of Amaral. Gordon Brown was involved in the case so far as he acted as one would expect and hope a member of parliament to react when one of the uks citizens is the victim of a horrendous crime in a foreign country.

Well, its your word against Amaral, and seeing that Amaral is the victim here, I'm more inclined to believe him until proven otherwise.

What GB did went beyond reaction - it was an act and not reaction.
Until you can provide proof that it is indeed a trend that GB provides goodwill to just about every UK citizens who committed a crime in a foreign country I will believe otherwise. Imo, what he did in the mccanns case was extraordinary. Anyway, mccanns are not the victims here, Maddie was! She was a victim of neglect, while her parents went and got pissed leaving her in the dark in a foreign land (as you rightly pointed out).
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 13:21

@aiyoyo wrote:
tyra wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If the allegation is true that GB had a hand in Amaral's removal, then question has to ask why was Gordon involved and what was the motive?
Anyway, Amaral has a reason for writing the book, and Rebelo didnt - let's put it this way. Also he was in charge during the first few crucial months.

Did he ever claim he had full evidence. He wrote what he knew if I am no wrong, and what he knew were all part of the investigation process and based on evidence what thesis investigators were working on, and the thesis was Maddie is dead and the rest people know.

I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that Gordon Brown was involved in the removal of Amaral. Gordon Brown was involved in the case so far as he acted as one would expect and hope a member of parliament to react when one of the uks citizens is the victim of a horrendous crime in a foreign country.

Well, its your word against Amaral, and seeing that Amaral is the victim here, I'm more inclined to believe him until proven otherwise.

What GB did went beyond reaction - it was an act and not reaction.
Until you can provide proof that it is indeed a trend that GB provides goodwill to just about every UK citizens who committed a crime in a foreign country I will believe otherwise. Imo, what he did in the mccanns case was extraordinary. Anyway, mccanns are not the victims here, Maddie was! She was a victim of neglect, while her parents went and got pissed leaving her in the dark in a foreign land as you put it.

There's your first mistake, it's not my word against Amaral, it's the documented evidence against Amaral.

There are hundreds of cases where the government gets involved both privately and publically to support uk citizens, this cannot possibly be news to you?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 13:28

tyra wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
tyra wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:If the allegation is true that GB had a hand in Amaral's removal, then question has to ask why was Gordon involved and what was the motive?
Anyway, Amaral has a reason for writing the book, and Rebelo didnt - let's put it this way. Also he was in charge during the first few crucial months.

Did he ever claim he had full evidence. He wrote what he knew if I am no wrong, and what he knew were all part of the investigation process and based on evidence what thesis investigators were working on, and the thesis was Maddie is dead and the rest people know.

I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that Gordon Brown was involved in the removal of Amaral. Gordon Brown was involved in the case so far as he acted as one would expect and hope a member of parliament to react when one of the uks citizens is the victim of a horrendous crime in a foreign country.

Well, its your word against Amaral, and seeing that Amaral is the victim here, I'm more inclined to believe him until proven otherwise.

What GB did went beyond reaction - it was an act and not reaction.
Until you can provide proof that it is indeed a trend that GB provides goodwill to just about every UK citizens who committed a crime in a foreign country I will believe otherwise. Imo, what he did in the mccanns case was extraordinary. Anyway, mccanns are not the victims here, Maddie was! She was a victim of neglect, while her parents went and got pissed leaving her in the dark in a foreign land as you put it.

There's your first mistake, it's not my word against Amaral, it's the documented evidence against Amaral.

There are hundreds of cases where the government gets involved both privately and publically to support uk citizens, this cannot possibly be news to you?

What documented evidence?

And, there's your first mistake - you are generalising. Yes, government are involved in overseas cases, but rarely the PM personally and never so publicly in such a pronounced way either!
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 13:53

@aiyoyo wrote:

What documented evidence?

And, there's your first mistake - you are generalising. Yes, government are involved in overseas cases, but rarely the PM personally and never so publicly in such a pronounced way either!

What documented evidence? the bleedin' files, what else?

Oh and Gordon Brown wasn't pm then and yes he has been involved in other cases in high profile ways, you just would rather believe there is something odd about it, there is nothing odd about it, it's a standard piece of a. required behaviour from one's government and b. reflects well on the government/individuals doing it because they get involved in stuff wot the ordinary folks on the street care about innit.


Madeleine's face was all over the media and all over the country people were talking about it and worrying that the police weren't doing enough etc it would have been freakishly odd had someone high profile from the governing party NOT got involved. He was reflecting the public mood, you might now want to rewrite history and retrospectively argue all sorts about the case but the facts were: on week one the concern and support for the Mccann family was absolute, it only became shaky when the press kicked into phase two of blame the victim money making and even then it was really only the tabloid readers who got suspicious in large numbers.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty A standard piece of required behaviour?

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.12.09 14:00

tyra wrote:Oh and Gordon Brown wasn't PM then and yes he has been involved in other cases in high profile ways, you just would rather believe there is something odd about it, there is nothing odd about it, it's a standard piece of (a) required behaviour from one's government and (b) reflects well on the government/individuals doing it...
Hmmm.

Nine long personal telephone calls, one of them 45 minutes, between Gordon Brown who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, not Foreign Secretary, and Dr Gerald McCann...

...and the Head of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, Clarence Mitchell, ordered to drop everything to be public relations supremo for the McCanns, when his job description is 'to control what comes out in the media'.

= 'A standard piece of required behaviour'?

LOL!
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15455
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 14:10

@Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:Oh and Gordon Brown wasn't PM then and yes he has been involved in other cases in high profile ways, you just would rather believe there is something odd about it, there is nothing odd about it, it's a standard piece of (a) required behaviour from one's government and (b) reflects well on the government/individuals doing it...
Hmmm.

Nine long personal telephone calls, one of them 45 minutes, between Gordon Brown who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, not Foreign Secretary, and Dr Gerald McCann...

...and the Head of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, Clarence Mitchell, ordered to drop everything to be public relations supremo for the McCanns, when his job description is 'to control what comes out in the media'.

= 'A standard piece of required behaviour'?

LOL!

Gordon Brown was similarly involved in the case of the high profile imprisonment of the schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons who was found guilty in Sudan of blasphemy after allowing her pupils to name a teddybear Mohammed, you may have heard of the case, Mr Brown was not alone, other individuals were involved not least, a couple of peers who did a great job.

In this case she wasn't even the victim of a crime herself, she was the alleged perpetrator but yet again in response to public outcry the politicians got involved and mr brown, who was by then PM rather than PM in waiting got stuck in too even calling Ms Gibbons son personally to let him know of her release.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2994960.ece

But hey, if you need to believe that the government doesn't do this sort of thing, to make your argument more robust do feel absolutely free to ignore any and all facts that get in the way of that
roll
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.12.09 16:20

tyra wrote:But hey, if you need to believe that the government doesn't do this sort of thing, to make your argument more robust do feel absolutely free to ignore any and all facts that get in the way of that...
Yes, ignoring FACTS is bad.

By the way, did you notice that in your reply you failed even to mention why it was necessary for the head of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, whose job it is 'to control what comes out in the media', to be in charge of media relations for the McCanns for nearly three years now? Perhaps that fact is a tad more difficult for you to explain away, hey?

Was he sent on a mission to help find an abducted child?
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15455
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 16:28

@Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:But hey, if you need to believe that the government doesn't do this sort of thing, to make your argument more robust do feel absolutely free to ignore any and all facts that get in the way of that...
Yes, ignoring FACTS is bad.

By the way, did you notice that in your reply you failed even to mention why it was necessary for the head of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, whose job it is 'to control what comes out in the media', to be in charge of media relations for the McCanns for nearly three years now? Perhaps that fact is a tad more difficult for you to explain away, hey?

Was he sent on a mission to help find an abducted child?

So you acknowledge that you were wrong to mock the idea that Gordon Brown would get involved because it's a standard thing to do? I'd hate for this to reappear by one of your trained pets as a nonsensical attempt to mislead people again, tomorrow or next week?

I sometimes get the feeling that these forum myths are so ingrained that they are like those birthday candles that never go out no matter how often they are blown. I seem to have been correcting people from repeating myths and lies for more than two years now, it gets very wearing.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by MaryB on 27.12.09 16:30

I have never quite understood exactly why it was necessary that the governments very own spin doctor was sent out to the McCanns. Almost seconded to the McCanns one could say. Is this usual practice. I've not heard of it before. Perhaps Mr Mitchell quite often had assignments abroad to help British citizens but we never heard about it. Like that person in the Turkish prison. Did he get his own spin doctor.
MaryB
MaryB

Posts : 204
Join date : 2009-11-29

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by aiyoyo on 27.12.09 16:37

@Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:But hey, if you need to believe that the government doesn't do this sort of thing, to make your argument more robust do feel absolutely free to ignore any and all facts that get in the way of that...
Yes, ignoring FACTS is bad.

By the way, did you notice that in your reply you failed even to mention why it was necessary for the head of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, whose job it is 'to control what comes out in the media', to be in charge of media relations for the McCanns for nearly three years now? Perhaps that fact is a tad more difficult for you to explain away, hey?

Was he sent on a mission to help find an abducted child?

Well, CM, master spinner and media controller is definitely not a standard piece of required government behavior? In fact I have never seen anything like it ever, after all the mccans were unknown before.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 16:40

@MaryB wrote:I have never quite understood exactly why it was necessary that the governments very own spin doctor was sent out to the McCanns. Almost seconded to the McCanns one could say. Is this usual practice. I've not heard of it before. Perhaps Mr Mitchell quite often had assignments abroad to help British citizens but we never heard about it. Like that person in the Turkish prison. Did he get his own spin doctor.

He wasn't a spin doctor for the government he was monitoring the media not manipulating the media, so essentially it is a form of summarising what is going on in the media/public views etc and writing reports on that to pass to those in power.

He was also previously a journalist, again, reporting the news, so in this position of spokesman again we can see the same pattern, essentially reporting what is known to others who may make use of it for their own purposes (the media), he's probably does not really see himself as a spin doctor and he certainly doesn't appear to be qualified in it.

I'm not sure it was ever explained why he was chosen to go off and help, maybe he put himself forward, having been so close to the Milly Dowler case before, he felt he had something to offer a family unused to the media?

What is known is that he chose to quit his MMU job and chose to work with the Mccanns after his period of secondment was over, which is quite interesting I suppose.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Quoting Clarence Mitchell himself

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.12.09 17:02

tyra wrote:He wasn't a spin doctor for the government he was monitoring the media not manipulating the media
The name 'Media Monitoring Unit' disguises the unit's true purpose, much as the Soviet Union's 'Ministry of Truth' was in reality the Ministry for Propaganda.

You may not be aware of it, tyra, but the statement 'Our job is to control what comes out in the media' is a direct quotation from Clarence Mitchell himself.

He knew what his job was, all right.

And he did it well.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15455
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 17:03

Looking through the "Lies" you spout must be a full time job for the MMU
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009 - Page 2 Empty Re: The meeting between DCI Roe, Essex Police and Tony Bennett, 17 Dec 2009

Post by Guest on 27.12.09 17:04

@Tony Bennett wrote:
tyra wrote:He wasn't a spin doctor for the government he was monitoring the media not manipulating the media
The name 'Media Monitoring Unit' disguises the unit's true purpose, much as the Soviet Union's 'Ministry of Truth' was in reality the Ministry for Propaganda.

You may not be aware of it, tyra, but the statement 'Our job is to control what comes out in the media' is a direct quotation from Clarence Mitchell himself.

He knew what his job was, all right.

And he did it well.

Hate to be a link nazi but when did he say that and what was it in relation to, as this thread shows he has had a few jobs, what was he referring to when he made this statement?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum