Gerry to speak at CEOP Conference in Jan

by Autumn 26.12.09 15:47

Gerry McCann will be speaking at the CEOP Conference to be held at the The School of Oriental and African Studies, Bloomsbury, London on 26th January 2010.

The speeches about 'False Allegations of Abduction' and 'The Shannon Mathews Investigation' could bring Gerry out in a cold sweat. Following Gerry's closing speech, there will be a question and answer session - hope the audience have some interesting questions to put to him. thinking

by Guest 26.12.09 22:11

Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

by Autumn 27.12.09 5:07

Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.12.09 14:08

Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cool, he'll be among friends then thumbsup

by Autumn 27.12.09 14:32

Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cool, he'll be among friends then

It would be interesting to know whether Jim Gamble invited Gerry to speak or did he volunteer. Anyway, whichever it was, Im sure JG will be watching and listening to Gerry very carefully whilst hes talking. Gerry may well feel that he is in control of the British Police force but I reckon Jim Gamble has more than a few suspiciouns about the McCanns.

by Guest 27.12.09 14:40

Sorry, but the notion that Gerry McCann thinks he is in control of the British police force is absolutely stupid. Where do people get their stupid ideas from?

I bet Jim Gamble thinks Gerry is a great guy thumbsup

by Autumn 27.12.09 14:49

Raffle wrote:Sorry, but the notion that Gerry McCann thinks he is in control of the British police force is absolutely stupid. Where do people get their stupid ideas from?

I bet Jim Gamble thinks Gerry is a great guy

Whose to say whether he does or doesn't but both Gerry and Kate looked very uncomfortable being near him during the recent CEOP vid launch interviews. Kate especially looked very uneasy in his presence. Interesting that one of the 6 speeeches is about 'Fake Abduction' hmmmmmmmmm.

by Guest 27.12.09 14:50

I don't think they looked uneasy to be near Jim Gamble at all.

by Guest 27.12.09 14:54

Raffle wrote:Sorry, but the notion that Gerry McCann thinks he is in control of the British police force is absolutely stupid. Where do people get their stupid ideas from?

I bet Jim Gamble thinks Gerry is a great guy

I doubt Gerry feels he is control of anything much when you consider his circumstances, his daughter is still missing and hard as they try they can't find any new leads or evidence and the two police forces you would hope to do everything they can for you have had to give up active searching, it's an incredibly depressing and no doubt frustrating way to live I'd imagine. Particularly for the McCanns who come across as very proactive and purposeful.

by Autumn 27.12.09 14:59

Raffle wrote:I don't think they looked uneasy to be near Jim Gamble at all.

Watch this then. They are terrified of Jim Gamble, hes got them both sussed.

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

Jim Gamble thumbsup

by Guest 27.12.09 15:07

I don't agree at all autumn

by Guest 27.12.09 15:14

It is self evidently a positive piece of support from CEOP to the McCanns and their search. It gives them and their search legitimacy, these people aren't idiots, they think that it is worth spending time, money and effort trying to find Madeleine alive and so of course this needs to be spun, manipulated and rubbished by Amaral lovers everywhere, it makes him look more and more like a rogue ranter using speculation to back up his money making theories and ignoring actual evidence because it doesn't fit his spin.

Everything is a cover up isn't it, the evidence that was apparently collected but never released, the prosecuter is in on it too huh? the government are involved and now CEOP are involved, all playing along some cover up game to catch out the evil genius McCanns, don't make me laugh!

Honestly, someone's been on the christmas sherry!

by Guest 27.12.09 15:26

I agree tyra...it is only in the mind of certain people and it is all rubbish

by Autumn 27.12.09 15:46

Any chance of an interesting and incisive discussion about this topic or is it going to be hijacked, as so many other decent threads are, by the 'We Love The McCanns' Fanclub. I am prepared to say, at this stage, that I am in two minds about why Gerry is speaking at the conference and would welcome other opinions on this.

by Guest 27.12.09 16:01

Autumn wrote:Any chance of an interesting and incisive discussion about this topic or is it going to be hijacked, as so many other decent threads are, by the 'We Love The McCanns' Fanclub. I am prepared to say, at this stage, that I am in two minds about why Gerry is speaking at the conference and would welcome other opinions on this.

You didn't make a great start tbh in your attempt to be interesting or incisive, you simply made a rather bizarre statement suggesting that somehow the Mccanns, particularly Kate for some reason, are terrified of Jim Gamble of CEOP and your "evidence" to suppoert this belief was a clip from a live interview showing all three of them working together to highlight Madeleine by discussing a new strategy that CEOP had devised to appeal to people who may know the abductor that they believe snatched her.

by Autumn 27.12.09 16:19

'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

by Guest 27.12.09 16:26

Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

by Autumn 27.12.09 18:02

tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do Wink

by Guest 27.12.09 18:17

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

by Autumn 27.12.09 18:34

tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

According to the evidence in the police files, abduction would appear to be highly improbable. If, however, you have formed your opinion on what has been fed to the UK press I can well understand you going with the abduction theory.

by Guest 27.12.09 18:48

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

According to the evidence in the police files, abduction would appear to be highly improbable. If, however, you have formed your opinion on what has been fed to the UK press I can well understand you going with the abduction theory.

Hardly! the gutter press went with parental involvement of a probably dead Madeleine hence the libel case. Do keep up.

In fact I am almost solely led by the police investigation, which if you had bothered to read it, certainly does not rule out abduction, in fact almost entirely rules out parentsl involvement but I guess you'd rather not bother yourself with such annoying facts, not when it is apparently much more satisfying to repeat long disproved myths and rumours instead day after day after long day. You may have some memory issue that stops you from maintaining facts and figures in your brain for longer then two hours, please be aware the rest of us do not.

Takes all sorts I suppose, but when it comes to the law, justice and the life of an innocent child I'd put the facts ahead of my own personal "fun", in fact I am pretty insulted that someone purporting to debate the case hasn't even got a basic grasp of the findings.

by Autumn 27.12.09 19:25

tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

According to the evidence in the police files, abduction would appear to be highly improbable. If, however, you have formed your opinion on what has been fed to the UK press I can well understand you going with the abduction theory.

Hardly! the gutter press went with parental involvement of a probably dead Madeleine hence the libel case. Do keep up.

In fact I am almost solely led by the police investigation, which if you had bothered to read it, certainly does not rule out abduction, in fact almost entirely rules out parentsl involvement but I guess you'd rather not bother yourself with such annoying facts, not when it is apparently much more satisfying to repeat long disproved myths and rumours instead day after day after long day. You may have some memory issue that stops you from maintaining facts and figures in your brain for longer then two hours, please be aware the rest of us do not.

Takes all sorts I suppose, but when it comes to the law, justice and the life of an innocent child I'd put the facts ahead of my own personal "fun", in fact I am pretty insulted that someone purporting to debate the case hasn't even got a basic grasp of the findings.

Whats up. Trya, did the McCanns leave you off their Christmas card list again? Keep posting your sychophantic McCann fanmail drivel - better luck next time laugh

Well known fact that when you resort to making abusive posts, as you so often do, you have lost the argument. Any more posts like this, and I will report you.

by Guest 27.12.09 19:27

Truth = abuse.

??

Would you rather I lied, would that be more palatable?

by Autumn 27.12.09 19:46

tyra wrote:Truth = abuse.

??

Would you rather I lied, would that be more palatable?

The '60 Reasons' booklet would be a good starting point for you - much of it is based on the contents of the police files.

by Guest 27.12.09 19:53

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:Truth = abuse.

??

Would you rather I lied, would that be more palatable?

The '60 Reasons' booklet would be a good starting point for you - much of it is based on the contents of the police files.

You know perfectly well that's rubbish, it is based on media speculation, myths, rumours and the speculation in a police investigation BEFORE the forensic evidence was completed and half the interviews for that matter, the theories were ruled out by the completion of the investigation. That is why it is libellous and cannot be repeated, mr bennett is very fortunate that the McCanns have empathy for his problems that they didn't see him annhilated for the damage he has done to this case, however, people like yourself repeating said lies are no doing his bank balance any favours.

by Slartibartfast 27.12.09 20:25

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:Truth = abuse.

??

Would you rather I lied, would that be more palatable?

The '60 Reasons' booklet would be a good starting point for you - much of it is based on the contents of the police files.

Exactly, "much of it".

The rest is based on newspaper reports, misinterpreted evidence and speculation.

Hence Mr. Bennett's inability to defend its contents in a court of law and his accession to the McCann's demands.

by Ruby 28.12.09 3:05

Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cool, he'll be among friends then

I'm interested in the friendship between Jim Gamble and Gerry McCann.
What is it that brings these two so close together?
According to Martin Brunt, Gamble had sent CEOP representatives to Portugal immediately after Maddie's disappearance and, iirc, before Leicestershire cops even got there. Why?
What does Gamble have to say about the Gaspars' statements?
Did he also investigate Yvonne Warren Martin's concerns about recognising Payne?
I hope someone attending the conference in January puts these questions to both Gamble and Gerry.

by Guest 28.12.09 3:08

Ruby wrote:
Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cool, he'll be among friends then

I'm interested in the friendship between Jim Gamble and Gerry McCann.
What is it that brings these two so close together?
According to Martin Brunt, Gamble had sent CEOP representatives to Portugal immediately after Maddie's disappearance and, iirc, before Leicestershire cops even got there. Why?
What does Gamble have to say about the Gaspars' statements?
Did he also investigate Yvonne Warren Martin's concerns about recognising Payne?
I hope someone attending the conference in January puts these questions to both Gamble and Gerry.