SCOTLAND YARD SQUAD HUNTING MADELEINE MCCANN COSTS £6,228 A DAY

The Star refers to who Hamish Campbell who is in charge of the Maddie review. This Telegraph article about the Barry George case is enlightening:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
He [Hamish Campbell] told his officers to “prove Barry George did not kill Jill Dando,” and
when they said they could not, Mr Campbell presented a file to the Crown
Prosecution Service, who charged Mr George with murder.
But even before the case got to court there were concerns that the police,
under immense pressure to catch Miss Dando’s killer, had been so desperate to
secure a conviction that they had fallen into the trap of making the facts fit
into their hypothesis, rather than forming a hypothesis based on the facts.

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

And comments not allowed for this article….funny that!

£3m and nothing (disclosed) to show for it, sure that would go down well with the readership of the Star, who let's face it, probably do not constitute the most financially comfortable section of society and are feeling the pinch with ever rising household expenses and food bills.

It makes one wonder why Daily Star printed such a banal piece as the rising cost of Op Grange amidst the triple dip recession and government cuts on this and that affecting mostly the poor and destitute nominate the headlines.

I dont see the purpose in informing the public about the Review costs as why would that be in the public interest to know since the pubic have no say over government spendings.

It would have been better if they'd asked the Review Team what is taking them so long to scrutinise papers; what they found so far that can progress the case, or what they hoped to find; or how long they expect to keep it up? The spending of taxpayers money would be better justified if there are some productive answers to be had from the Review.

I think that story is blatant lies. I don't believe that much money per day is being spent and I don't believe there are that many officers involved. Why the story has been printed I dont know.

I think they think the Public are stupid.

My friend works in forensic science and as part of her training she was told that there just isnt the money to perform tests on each and everything. Cases must have some sort of budget and she was told there are times people get away with things because there just isnt the money to be spent on nailing them.

The Police are scratching round for money just like everyone else is. There are hardly any Police Constables anymore as most of their job is being done by PCSO's who are cheaper to hire. Many PCSO are retired senior Police Officers who came back because they like the job, not for the money.

I have heard first hand the monetary cuts relating to child protection and it is frighteneing.

I am sure in these days of austerity it would be very hard to justify spending £6000 a day on one missing child. Especially one who has been missing for so long AND especially one where their very OWN SNIFFER DOGS indicated she was dead.

If they ARE spending £6000 (which I doubt) this case is obviously far more than the disappearance/death of one single child.

littlepixie, isn't the review being funded by the Home Office and not the police, I realise it's still the tax payer who picks up the bill of course?
I would imagine it's because the police are not funding it and are using "soon to be retired " personnel that's it's even possible. You wouldn't get that number of personnel used for a full scale murder hunt, not for 2 years anyway.

They said it was.
If the Home Office are paying 6 grand a day on one missing child case it makes it even more "twilight zone" to me.

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

Forgive me, but are you upset at the expenditure of GBP 6 thousand per day for an equip of 28 including travel, subsistence, technical support, etc.?
It's costing the UK taxpayer p.p. GBP 0,0001 per day ...

Not sure where the Daily Star Sunday are getting their figures from but if it's even a third of that, say £2,000 a day, that's a helluva lot of taxpayers' money to have been spent every day for almost two years on an enquiry which seems to be going nowhere. Save the British taxpayers money SY. Just READ THE OFFICIAL POLICE FILES. Therin lies the answer.

How can it take two years for a professional outfit like SY to come up with nothing? Are they all thick?

Châtelaine wrote:Forgive me, but are you upset at the expenditure of GBP 6 thousand per day for an equip of 28 including travel, subsistence, technical support, etc.?
It's costing the UK taxpayer p.p. GBP 0,0001 per day ...

That's GBP 0.0001 too much IMO.

maebee wrote:Not sure where the Daily Star Sunday are getting their figures from but if it's even a third of that, say £2,000 a day, that's a helluva lot of taxpayers' money to have been spent every day for almost two years on an enquiry which seems to be going nowhere. Save the British taxpayers money SY. Just READ THE OFFICIAL POLICE FILES. Therin lies the answer.

How can it take two years for a professional outfit like SY to come up with nothing? Are they all thick?

Unless their remit is to take as long as they like and make sure they come up with nothing.

roy rovers wrote:

maebee wrote:Not sure where the Daily Star Sunday are getting their figures from but if it's even a third of that, say £2,000 a day, that's a helluva lot of taxpayers' money to have been spent every day for almost two years on an enquiry which seems to be going nowhere. Save the British taxpayers money SY. Just READ THE OFFICIAL POLICE FILES. Therin lies the answer.

How can it take two years for a professional outfit like SY to come up with nothing? Are they all thick?

Unless their remit is to take as long as they like and make sure they come up with nothing.

Hi Roy, I get that the plan is to come up with nothing . Poor Madeleine. But to take 2 years to come up with nothing makes them look a bit slow. :wtf2: could they not have wound it up after 6 months or so? They surely would have learnt every single thing about the case in a few months!

Despite the snail pace, I remain positive.
I have faith there are still some good honest decent police officers around.
I also believe the reason it lasted so long may be due to the difficulty and complicity of the task of looking for that vital bits of info that matter.

There's a more economical and easier way if whitewash is the ultimate goal - just go through the motion, then come up with any old excuse. No need to waste too much time, manpower, and money on something on a foregone conclusion, because at the end of the day, there can only be two possibilities that can happen to a child that has been reported as missing, that is, 1) the child is taken by force by a stranger, or 2) the child is dead at the hands of person/s known to her before the police report is lodged. No other way about it!

To whitewash there is only ONE card to play, and Redwood had pre-empted that by proclaiming "it was a crime of abduction by a stranger"; so the ensuing step would be dead easy really if you think about it . Just copy and paste from the mccanns, and say that the abductor is a well connected one, who has the means to travel, so literally could be anywhere on this planet; and that there is a one over a zillion chance that Maddie will be found if still alive, end of story.

I cant see how they can conclude it on "abduction" without being explicit on how they arrived at that conclusion without incurring the outrage of the public. In the finished it does not matter whether money for the Review is accounting to which governmental department (be it Police Force or Home Office or a department they haven't told us ) it is still the taxpayers money spent on one missing child that was singled out for special attention because her parents are NHS doctors armed with a spin-doctor ex government dept. This, in spite that the public had given generously to her parents who claimed donors money was used for private detectives to search, who came up with not one shred of tangible or intangible evidence apart from some pseudo sightings, and one empty promise of "home before 5-Christmases ago".

In that scenario, the Review Team would become a national joke, and international laughing stock, in the event of a winning verdict in favour of Amaral in the Mccanns case against him. New Statute or not, it is useless against press coverage of a Court process, even that of a foreign Court. How is the MET going to explain the disparity between their verdict and that of the Portugal Court? Plus if as Blacksmith alludes to some people will get sued by team Amaral, starting from Mccanns pink spoken-creature...and a few more...surely the press will go into overdrive.

aiyoyo wrote:Despite the snail pace, I remain positive.
I have faith there are still some good honest decent police officers around.
I also believe the reason it lasted so long may be due to the difficulty and complicity of the task of looking for that vital bits of info that matter.
SNIP
To whitewash there is only ONE card to play, and Redwood had pre-empted that by proclaiming "it was a crime of abduction by a stranger"; so the ensuing step would be dead easy really if you think about it .. .

I am not so sure. Redwood would have to be able to explain in detail, on live TV, how it happened, or could have happened, and will be subject to friendly cross examination on each step. At every point the interviewer will be able to say "But what about X" .
He will need answers to every one of those questions.
and so far as I can see there are none.

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Despite the snail pace, I remain positive.
I have faith there are still some good honest decent police officers around.
I also believe the reason it lasted so long may be due to the difficulty and complicity of the task of looking for that vital bits of info that matter.
SNIP
To whitewash there is only ONE card to play, and Redwood had pre-empted that by proclaiming "it was a crime of abduction by a stranger"; so the ensuing step would be dead easy really if you think about it .. .

I am not so sure. Redwood would have to be able to explain in detail, on live TV, how it happened, or could have happened, and will be subject to friendly cross examination on each step. At every point the interviewer will be able to say "But what about X" .
He will need answers to every one of those questions.
and so far as I can see there are none.

Peter - but will AR have to explain anything at all? Because, IIRC, it was stated by SY at the outset that the results of the review will not be made public.

Maybe the McCanns are trying to get the review closed down before it reaches a conclusion.

From the article: The figures we have obtained suggest the cost of the investigation, which the Met describes as an “investigative review”, is rising.

The Star does not say where they obtained the figures from - they could have been pulled out of thin air!


Near the end of the article: In responding to a Freedom of Information request, the Met said: “A major investigation team is assigned to Operation Grange.

“This is made up of one detective chief inspector, three detective inspectors, five detective sergeants, 19 detective constables, six police support staff.

“The MIT is assisted by three murder review group officers.

“Staff numbers are open to change depending on the needs of the review.

“The MIT also continues to work on its existing outstanding homicide cases.”

It also confirmed that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood is the senior investigating officer and that he is “supervised” by Detective Chief Superintendent Campbell “who has oversight of this investigation”.

So the Freedom of Information request was about who was involved in the review not how much it is costing.

If the McCanns can generate enough outrage at the suggested costs involved, Cameron may be persuaded to pull the plug.

They would then be free to appear distraught at how close they were to finding Madeleine, state the review completely exonerated them, put out the begging bowls for cash to restart their own "search" and add another chapter to the book.

I hope that the Met are closing in on Gerry & Kate and this is their last desperate throw of the dice.

The McCanns have shown they are willing to throw allies under the bus when it suits them. After selling their sex story to NI and being close to the likes of Rebekah Brookes, they had no problems telling tales about them to the Leveson Inquiry and then joining Hacked Off. The Met will do well not to whitewash this review as the McCanns will quite likely turn on them when it suits.

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Despite the snail pace, I remain positive.
I have faith there are still some good honest decent police officers around.
I also believe the reason it lasted so long may be due to the difficulty and complicity of the task of looking for that vital bits of info that matter.
SNIP
To whitewash there is only ONE card to play, and Redwood had pre-empted that by proclaiming "it was a crime of abduction by a stranger"; so the ensuing step would be dead easy really if you think about it .. .

I am not so sure. Redwood would have to be able to explain in detail, on live TV, how it happened, or could have happened, and will be subject to friendly cross examination on each step. At every point the interviewer will be able to say "But what about X" .
He will need answers to every one of those questions.
and so far as I can see there are none.

Peter - but will AR have to explain anything at all? Because, IIRC, it was stated by SY at the outset that the results of the review will not be made public.

I am with you. If it turns out to be whitewash, they wont tell the public anything.
It would need an inquest to be put in place to oblige them to answer questions.

aiyoyo wrote:

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Despite the snail pace, I remain positive.
I have faith there are still some good honest decent police officers around.
I also believe the reason it lasted so long may be due to the difficulty and complicity of the task of looking for that vital bits of info that matter.
SNIP
To whitewash there is only ONE card to play, and Redwood had pre-empted that by proclaiming "it was a crime of abduction by a stranger"; so the ensuing step would be dead easy really if you think about it .. .

I am not so sure. Redwood would have to be able to explain in detail, on live TV, how it happened, or could have happened, and will be subject to friendly cross examination on each step. At every point the interviewer will be able to say "But what about X" .
He will need answers to every one of those questions.
and so far as I can see there are none.

Peter - but will AR have to explain anything at all? Because, IIRC, it was stated by SY at the outset that the results of the review will not be made public.

I am with you. If it turns out to be whitewash, they wont tell the public anything.
It would need an inquest to be put in place to oblige them to answer questions.

I`m not so sure that the results of a review can be kept secret in our `supposed` democracy - this isn`t Stalinist Russia. Whatever way you look at it, its taxpayers money. I can understand it being kept secret for reasons of not alerting a suspect or even prejudicing a court case, but eventually it will have to be made public.

There's no way that number of officers could spend this much time on the case. OK some time chasing down leads and some time preparing exhaustive lists of interview questions for the T9 if they ever get the go-ahead to call them in.

I believe the matter is frozen at the Crown Prosecution Service / Home Office level on account of no realistic hope of a prosecution at the present time and no political gain to be had by being seen to be persecuting the poor McCanns. The conservatives are focussed entirely on winning the next general election outright. Cameron could be toast in a short time if the local elections go badly. No way will anything potentially unpopular be considered.

roy rovers wrote:There's no way that number of officers could spend this much time on the case. OK some time chasing down leads and some time preparing exhaustive lists of interview questions for the T9 if they ever get the go-ahead to call them in.

I believe the matter is frozen at the Crown Prosecution Service / Home Office level on account of no realistic hope of a prosecution at the present time and no political gain to be had by being seen to be persecuting the poor McCanns. The conservatives are focussed entirely on winning the next general election outright. Cameron could be toast in a short time if the local elections go badly. No way will anything potentially unpopular be considered.

You would be hard pushed gathering the straws to evidence that prosecuting the Mccanns (if that's what the evidence from the review suggests is the right course of action) would be unpopular.
On the contrary, I believe the majority of the public query events and would want justice for Madeleine, whatever that may be. After all, the twins also,deserve protection from danger.

The Mccanns are no ordinary commoners to be handled like you would handle common criminals.
They haven't spent 6 long years building up their public persona, deceiving the public and government (that even the PM cited them as examples of "victims") for nothing. Their continued hired of mouthpiece and lawyers on retention basis is for a reason, and the reason is not Madeleine.

They have proven "they will NEVER give up their lies"; will do anything to keep their lies under the lid.
If the lid should come off, the damage to them and to the country would be immeasurable, and they will go down in history as the MOST evil PAIR of DOCTORS.
There is just no way the public and government would forgive the massive scale of their deception and fraudulent fund.

Any leak on possible prosecution will turn press and media attention on them into a frenzy that risks giving their lawyers loopholes for defence. It goes without saying, if a prosecution were to happen, their trial will turn into the biggest international media focus of the 21st centuries. Bigger than that of OJ, Amanda Knox, and that of OP combined. Particularly, when you take into account their victimisation of innocent families and children from sightings, as well as their prosecutions of innocent Police Officer, old-age pensioner and more, suing of newspapers, and profiting from Maddie's name - all these will be rehashed to remind people of their evilness.
Dont forgetting to take into account the number of people involved who helped cover this up - T7. And, those co-consiprators - one very prominent businessman and his in-house lawyer , one well-known ex-govt pink creature, private detectives, accountants, trustees, CR, CEOP, journalist friends [Jon Corner, Fiona Phillips (?)], families and friends, a 'manure colour' name ex PM perhaps, etc etc. The scale of this cover up is unrivaled by any other.

Not forgetting also those they made use of for their purpose, ie Charity and Children Welfare organisations they misrepresented, Celebrities who helped them raised fund or promote awareness of the Search. The sheer volume of entities they used to help cover up their lies will all be dragged up to fill up columns in the papers.

If their case ever go to trial, I suspect they will get off like OJ and Knox where the crime of homicide is concerned, but wont get off for Fraud. Conning people's money is thieving (make more serious by the fact it is a deliberate act post the fact), a serious crime punishable by imprisonment.

Lord Jeffrey Archer cot caught n the end, did not he?
No really a commoner, that one!
Keep hope, truth must out!
kindest regards
parapono

His crime (perjury I believe is it not?) is nothing when compared to the mcevils, ie different crime committed in two countries.

aiyoyo wrote:His crime (perjury I believe is it not?) is nothing when compared to the mcevils, ie different crime committed in two countries.

Of course, I know..
kindest regards
parapono

aiyoyo wrote:The Mccanns are no ordinary commoners to be handled like you would handle common criminals.
They haven't spent 6 long years building up their public persona, deceiving the public and government (that even the PM cited them as examples of "victims") for nothing. Their continued hired of mouthpiece and lawyers on retention basis is for a reason, and the reason is not Madeleine.

They have proven "they will NEVER give up their lies"; will do anything to keep their lies under the lid.
If the lid should come off, the damage to them and to the country would be immeasurable, and they will go down in history as the MOST evil PAIR of DOCTORS.
There is just no way the public and government would forgive the massive scale of their deception and fraudulent fund.

Any leak on possible prosecution will turn press and media attention on them into a frenzy that risks giving their lawyers loopholes for defence. It goes without saying, if a prosecution were to happen, their trial will turn into the biggest international media focus of the 21st centuries. Bigger than that of OJ, Amanda Knox, and that of OP combined. Particularly, when you take into account their victimisation of innocent families and children from sightings, as well as their prosecutions of innocent Police Officer, old-age pensioner and more, suing of newspapers, and profiting from Maddie's name - all these will be rehashed to remind people of their evilness.
Dont forgetting to take into account the number of people involved who helped cover this up - T7. And, those co-consiprators - one very prominent businessman and his in-house lawyer , one well-known ex-govt pink creature, private detectives, accountants, trustees, CR, CEOP, journalist friends [Jon Corner, Fiona Phillips (?)], families and friends, a 'manure colour' name ex PM perhaps, etc etc. The scale of this cover up is unrivaled by any other.

Not forgetting also those they made use of for their purpose, ie Charity and Children Welfare organisations they misrepresented, Celebrities who helped them raised fund or promote awareness of the Search. The sheer volume of entities they used to help cover up their lies will all be dragged up to fill up columns in the papers.

If their case ever go to trial, I suspect they will get off like OJ and Knox where the crime of homicide is concerned, but wont get off for Fraud. Conning people's money is thieving (make more serious by the fact it is a deliberate act post the fact), a serious crime punishable by imprisonment.

Agree with your comments, I don't think they will ever go to trial for the loss off their daughter, they have told lie upon lie and conned people into believing them. The so called top people who give them money and say "Oh the poor McCanns" it makes me very angry, I want to say to those people "why can't you see through them" Maybe some can but haven't the bottle to say.

The Media I'm sure will have their stories written on the McCann's but which ones will have the b***s to put it out into the public domain. The Daily Star seems to be tipping it's toes in the water, makes me wonder why under the FOI they wanted to know how many cops were working on the review and then saying how much its cost so far.

The McCanns will do all they can to protect the twins (pity they didn't do the same for Maddie) they will grow up and start asking their own questions, searching the internet and probably find this site & others like it, what answers will the parents give then. No fairy tale ending Kate & Gerry in your land of make believe.

I bet another win, win, win for Team McCann.

The police have got an obvious get out clause as they didn't do the investigation so they can blame spending millions on the Portuguese police and say their investigation was flawed.

The McCann's can return to the press with the begging bowls saying that although SY have nothing there is no evidence she is dead so the search should continue. Maybe even use the SY report to try more legal action in Portugal.

The UK press can rip into the Portuguese police on the back of the SY findings (or probably failure to find), doing rundowns of SY reviews. This should make some Sunday paper exclusives.

It is getting like that Bee Gees song 'you win again'.