Re: Gerry to speak at CEOP Conference in Jan

by Ruby 28.12.09 2:21

Raffle wrote:
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.

I'd think Jimbo knows far more about the case of missing Madeleine than anyone does on forums.

How so, Raffle?
What do you believe Gerry has confided in him?

by DCB1 28.12.09 2:24

Maybe he has read all the files - not just the selected bits that have been translated on various forums.

by Autumn 28.12.09 3:21

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.

Gerry's closing speech will be followed by questions from the audience - lets hope they ask him some challenging questions.

by Guest 28.12.09 12:15

I wonder if he will be applauded again?

by Guest 28.12.09 17:16

Who better to talk about this than a father that has gone and is still going through and will always go through the hell of having a child taken and Jim Gamble, who has no doubt forgotten more than we will ever know about this subject?

I know I would much rather listen to Gerry McCann and Jim Gamble than have Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral's conjecture shoved down my throat.

by Autumn 29.12.09 20:20

Raffle wrote:I wonder if he will be applauded again?

And if he is, will they live to regret doing so?

by **Jill Havern** 29.12.09 20:23

What The Papers Never Say wrote:I know I would much rather listen to Gerry McCann and Jim Gamble than have Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral's conjecture shoved down my throat.

Why register on this forum then when it's obvious that Tony posts here?

by Bea_Reasonable 29.12.09 21:21

Excuse me saying Jill, but didn't you say at one time all opinions welcome? That might be why.

by **Jill Havern** 29.12.09 21:25

Bea_Reasonable wrote:Excuse me saying Jill, but didn't you say at one time all opinions welcome? That might be why.

That's true, I did. But he is clearly uncomfortable with having Tony's conjecture shoved down his throat...so why register to be a member on a forum where that apparently happens? It must be awful for him.

What The Papers Never Say wrote:I know I would much rather listen to Gerry McCann and Jim Gamble than have Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral's conjecture shoved down my throat.

by Guest 29.12.09 21:35

Lets be honest. This place is far more welcoming to alternative viewpoints of which, thanks to the fragmentation of the fora, there are very many. One word of dissent in some other places and you are either in for a cyber kicking or banned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard there is a 'vetting' procedure under way at PFA2. I have read the open Madeleine section on there and horrified at some of the treatment applied to anyone with an opposing view.

by Guest 29.12.09 22:14

jkh wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:Excuse me saying Jill, but didn't you say at one time all opinions welcome? That might be why.

That's true, I did. But he is clearly uncomfortable with having Tony's conjecture shoved down his throat...so why register to be a member on a forum where that apparently happens? It must be awful for him.

What The Papers Never Say wrote:I know I would much rather listen to Gerry McCann and Jim Gamble than have Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral's conjecture shoved down my throat.

I didn't mean here, I was generalising, Bennett's tomes and Amaral's pathetic whinging and acting the victim appear everywhere from what I can see not just here!

by Guest 29.12.09 22:20

Here's a lovely example.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Autumn 29.12.09 23:09

What I'm wondering is why has Gerry been invited to speak at a Conference, where 2 of the 6 speeches are about Faked Abduction?

by twinkle 29.12.09 23:12

Lovely place!
Is that the same PFA that was set up to allow all viewpoints a fair hearing???
So they have a vetting system, I thought it was your opinion that mattered not who you know?
They have some rather childish posts displayed, the forum that seems devoted just to bashing other posters. Auntie's bloomers I think. If that is on public display then it just makes the place look like a hate site, makes you wonder what is said in the sections that aren't on public display.

by Finally 29.12.09 23:18

Hi Cherub
I looked at the link and all I can say is my goodness. Thanks Jill for this forum.

Take care

by twinkle 29.12.09 23:44

Finally wrote:Hi Cherub
I looked at the link and all I can say is my goodness. Thanks Jill for this forum.

Take care

Yes agreed, seems to be the only place where there is some tolerance. Thanks Jill. thumbsup

by twinkle 29.12.09 23:45

Just realised I am off topic (again) Maybe time to post the recipe for shortbread!! big grin

by Guest 30.12.09 0:46

Autumn wrote:What I'm wondering is why has Gerry been invited to speak at a Conference, where 2 of the 6 speeches are about Faked Abduction?

So about 33% then? What is the other 67ish % about?

by Autumn 30.12.09 4:55

twinkle wrote:Just realised I am off topic (again) Maybe time to post the recipe for shortbread!!

Good idea, Twinkle, I'm definately going to give your fudge recipe a go :D I got a slow cooker for Christmas so if anyone has some recipes ideas, theyd be much appreciated. Thinking maybe we should ask Jill if we can have a recipe section - the quicker and easier the better laugh

by Guest 30.12.09 9:10

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.]

I think this bit

14.45 Insight from the minds of child abductors: Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill, Dr Joe Sullivan, Consultant Chartered Psychologist, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre

will be very interesting. How an offender thinks and the risks they are willing to take to get their pray gives the police ideas and tools with which to catch similar freaks further down the line thumbsup

by Autumn 30.12.09 15:42

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.]

I think this bit
14.45 Insight from the minds of child abductors: Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill, Dr Joe Sullivan, Consultant Chartered Psychologist, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
will be very interesting. How an offender thinks and the risks they are willing to take to get their pray gives the police ideas and tools with which to catch similar freaks further down the line

That will be the point at which Gerry breaks out in a cold sweat and makes a swift exit to the bar laugh

by baconbutty 30.12.09 15:49

That's what got him into trouble in the first place! laugh

by vaguely 30.12.09 16:06

Autumn 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.]

I think this bit
14.45 Insight from the minds of child abductors: Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill, Dr Joe Sullivan, Consultant Chartered Psychologist, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
will be very interesting. How an offender thinks and the risks they are willing to take to get their pray gives the police ideas and tools with which to catch similar freaks further down the line

That will be the point at which Gerry breaks out in a cold sweat and makes a swift exit to the bar

yep, hilarious. Child disappearances always suit a laughing smiley don't they.

Anyway, no matter what You or I think of Gerry McCann, the point is he hasn't disappeared has he, not for two and a half years. He's been there, and attended these things - with a missing child, he's done that. He is the father of a missing child.

by Ruby 01.01.10 16:40

Picture the scene.

Experts have spoken about faked abductions.

The audience is entranced.

Gerry steps up in his brown trouser suit and blathers on a bit, saying nothing new.

The facilitator asks 'any questions?'

Every audience member's hand shoots up.

thinking

Wonder if i could put £195 through as expenses lol!

by MaryB 01.01.10 17:26

I'd like to ask the experts what are the indications of a fake abduction. But shame I'm not invited.

by Guest 01.01.10 18:34

MaryB wrote:I'd like to ask the experts what are the indications of a fake abduction. But shame I'm not invited.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in forums who think they are now experts on the indications of faked abductions. They have almost solved the case from the comfort of their chairs, without looking at the REAL evidence, or attending interviews/interogations. Why they haven't gone professional is beyond me thinking

by preciousramotswe 02.01.10 15:07

I'll admit it.

I am seriously worried about how many of the semi-professional McCann-haters are now rubishing CEOP.

Any forum you go to (Bren's skeleton cupboard, Morais, MM etc)) has the likes of Ironside crawling all over it, posting up stories about why Gamble is a dangerous creep and CEOP are probably just a front for paedophiles.

I find this kind of crap very worrying. It shows that from hating the parents of a missing child one can get drawn into a web of conspiraloon blatherings which ends up questioning one of the groups of people actually trying to protect kids from predators. In fact not just questioning, but actively trying to dig up dirt on them and even rubbishing the whole idea of investigating those found downloading child porn.

And I ask myself who benefits from that, and what their agenda is.

by preciousramotswe 02.01.10 15:13

Autumn wrote:
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

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.

If you do report her then you will be completely and utterly out of order.

It's you that ends up trying to rattle people by changing and twisting their posting names, it's you that resorts to insults every time you have your preconceptions challenged because your debating skills are just not up to dealing with it.

And that my dear is a fact.

Neither have you read the files anywhere near as well as you should have done for someone so sure the parents are guilty, but then this is a common and exasperating facet of the anti mindset.

Thery claim to be led only by the facts but they are actually woefully ignorant of them.

Now try debating the actual points made for once instead of huffing and puffing and posting up emoticons, it's transparent and frankly embarrassing.

by Guest 02.01.10 15:56

badmanners wrote:I'll admit it.

I am seriously worried about how many of the semi-professional McCann-haters are now rubishing CEOP.

Any forum you go to (Bren's skeleton cupboard, Morais, MM etc)) has the likes of Ironside crawling all over it, posting up stories about why Gamble is a dangerous creep and CEOP are probably just a front for paedophiles.

I find this kind of crap very worrying. It shows that from hating the parents of a missing child one can get drawn into a web of conspiraloon blatherings which ends up questioning one of the groups of people actually trying to protect kids from predators. In fact not just questioning, but actively trying to dig up dirt on them and even rubbishing the whole idea of investigating those found downloading child porn.

And I ask myself who benefits from that, and what their agenda is.

Two very important questions imo.

by Avery 02.01.10 16:36

I agree, we should not attack Jim Gamble and his group. It is quite possible he has his own reasons for inviting Gerry, if only to watch him squirm. The more public questioning of the couple the more exposure and pressure. They have hid behind Clarence and have avoided public scrutiny so exposure is a good thing.

Latest topics