Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

tigger wrote:Woofer wrote:
Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.
unquote

Wasn't it the case that footage was manipulated so that it seemed the Queen rudely flounced out of a room when no such event had occurred?
The final cut of the film cannot have been shown to the Queen before it was aired.

Don`t know about that one Tigger - I`d be quite surprised to hear they`d ever show the royals in a bad light, but there`s always a first I suppose. All I know is the BBC/Dimblebys et al are usually royalist, right wing, establishment etc.

It`s funny how, once again, the McCanns are compared with royalty.

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

Here it is Woofer.
The mcCanns aren't royalty - they're Emperor and Empress - with their new clothes that only believers can see...

Quite a few comments now.............

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

Isn't it rather odd that the BBC would have a comments section on a trailer, and for a programme that hasn't even aired.

The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....

statsman wrote:The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....

Oh yes - it is there now[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]How long will it stay there though? There are also some other very good comments too.

statsman wrote:The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....

They've probably never bothered to look it up.

All so very strange.

What do you think PeterMac, will Panorama jeopardise the case airing while the review is ongoing, do you think something deeper is going on?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Panorama at the last minute ditches the programme, similar to the Jimmy Savile documentary that was shelved at the last moment and replaced by a fawning love-in instead.

Wish I could get my spirits up about this.

gypsypeg wrote:Tony, I hope DCI Redwood has read that with care and has noted each and every point you made, especially regarding the corruption of police and ex-police officers in Iberian Police forces. That is positively disgusting.

Are you sure that Marcos Aragao Correia was "pretending to be a good samaritan"? You know how litigious these people can be. Its wise to be careful in what you say.

Daily Mirror, 4 February 2008:

QUOTE

The search for Madeleine McCann took a grim twist yesterday as divers trawled a remote reservoir for her body.

The hunt, near the Algarve resort where she went missing in May, followed an underworld tip-off to lawyer Marcos Correia.

Marcos, 32, said: "They told me she was thrown into a deserted lake with murky waters. I'm convinced this is the place."

It was a search that began in hope but gave way to heavy-hearted resignation as the weeks and months went by.

Now there are fears the hunt for Madeleine McCann could end in the murky depths of a reservoir 40 miles from where she went missing.

Good Samaritan Marcos Aragao Correia, 32, is paying for a team of British divers to trawl it after an underworld tip-off that she was dumped in a lake just days after being abducted.

And they have unearthed a 17ft cord he believes was used to tie up the four-year-old.

The desolate reservoir in Barragem do Arade - 150ft deep in places - has a beach and a walkway leading to a tower. It matches clues the Portuguese lawyer was given.

Marcos said: "I am convinced this is the place. My sources told me Madeleine was thrown into a deserted lake with murky waters, a beach and lots of trees.

"I believe this would have been the best place for someone to have dumped the body, based on my investigations...[REST SNIPPED]

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++++

Thanks for the reminder about litigious people, gypsypeg. As if I needed such a reminder at this time.

Months after the above and other similar stories appeared, Correia admitted that he'd lied about the so-called 'underworld sources' - and admitte that Metodo 3 had paid all the expenses for 'his' diving team.

perhaps as the 5th anniversary approaches and SY have been investigating for a year with a huge amount of money placed at its disposal it would seem appropriate to give an idea of what they have been doing, minus any details. That would be unprofessional and unthinkable surely, discussing an ongoing investigation whilst it is in progress?
I am confident nothing libellous will be stated.
Nothing along the lines of :
the evidence shows that the parents / parents and all/ parents and some of their holiday companions know what happened to Madeleine/ are aware of her whereabouts/ are involved in her disappearance..

however, surely any statement of fact cannpot be construed as libellous?
such as
the evidence so far points away from abduction from that apartment. there is no evidence of a break-in.
[plausible alternative, mentioned or not..there could have been an opportunistic abduction after the child had exited the apartment [ stated as being unlocked on numerous occasions] of her own volition.
Raises many questions in the viewers' minds....why was this plausible scenario dismissed immediately by the parents, anyone who has read the book knows this scenario when suggested was described for posterity by Kate as an insult to the intelligence. Really? The only reasons I and any logical viewers will probably think of to make a voluntary exit impossible are either the apartment was locked from the outside, or Madeleine was incapable of movement. Are a professional police force expected to take at face value Kate's statement that had Maddie exited of her own accord, she would not have closed doors/ gates and curtains? I think not. So hopefully there will be another video showing the tapas area, distance and sightline from tapas to 5a, hope we see the entrance to the patio area and the safety gate. And we can think without SY saying a thing.
Well, Maddie McCann could have exited via the patio door through a gap in the middle of patio curtains where they met when closed, just as I imagine Gerry, Kate and Matt did on their checks, no need to open fully then close again. No mention anywhere of these curtains being disturbed, is there? And she must have been able to open the patio door because her parents left it unlocked so she could exit in an emergency, did they not? So all standing between Madeleine and the road was the safety gate. Crucial for their story about how she could not [unable to] exit 5a of her own accord..
The safety gate, if secured correctly after each check, not only would she not have bothered closing it after her, before descending those steps, as stated by Kate, she would have been unable to open it in the first place..... just as it was designed for preventing... it is a CHILD SAFETY GATE.
Never did any of the adults who checked state the obvious reason why Maddie could not have got on to the street.......she could not have opened that gate at the top of the steps. Are we meant to think that for the checkers' convenience, they never bothered to secure it properly? This is what I would expect to hear about why Maddie could not exit that property....not that she would not have closed both gates behind her..she surely would not have got past the first gate at the top...unless she tried to climb over.]
If these things have gone through the SY investigators' minds, then I doubt they will be mentioned, but they cannot be sued for libel for stating what is fact. If there is no evidence of abduction from the stated palce at the stated time, that is a fact. There is no evidence to support that particular hypothesis. That is not libellous, it is a fact, surely?
Investigations are designed to reach an outcome where within set parameters which cannot be altered because they are fact, various hypotheses are given weight according to how well they tally with the known unalterable facts.
What the McCanns state are not facts, they are statements of acts or ommissions which have to be analysed for veracity in so far as they fit or do not fit in with what are known facts. Apartment layout, distance, weather conditions, time...for example.

What I am angry about is why in the first crucial interviews the questions were not part of the transcript, ar least the published one.... they were asked and stated.confronted with they stated.... SY might have to ignore all those first witness statements as we do not know [maybe they have a full transcript incl questions...] if the tapas bunch were asked leading questions, if they were harrassed, if they were given time to collect their thoughts.....it is important as part of a written record to be able to see what they were asked and how? I wish to God the 9 of them had been interviewed simultaneously , the childcare reasons for this not being done were laughable considering the creche facilities in OC.

candyfloss wrote:Isn't it rather odd that the BBC would have a comments section on a trailer, and for a programme that hasn't even aired.

The Radio Times has nothing to do with the BBC.

It is a the property of a small publishing house called Immediate Media Company. All the comments are on the publisher's site not on the BBC site at all.

Probably they don't even have anyone in the office at the weekend.

tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.

Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?

Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything? That is rather a hysterical response in advance of the programme.

I suspect that you are very wrong because people do think that their taxes should be spent on solving crime. It is one of the clearest things that every political door stepper hears. "We want our money spent on the right things like locking up criminals."

gypsypeg wrote:

tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the McCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.

Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything?

That is a fair point that you make, gypsypeg. His appearance on the programme may not compromise the investigation at all. It depends on what he actually says.

Another brief point. As the SY Team have repeatedly emphasised, this is a review, not an investigation as such.

But in focussing on D.C.I. Andy Redwood, are we not forgetting the person he has to delvier his report to?

Namely: Commander Simon Foy.

Foy is best known for his work in wrongly trying to convict Barry George of the murder of Jill Dando.

While some claim that Dando was killed by a Serbian hit-man, in the midst of the Bosnian conflict, rumours abound that she had somehow stumbled on a paedophile ring amongst her TV work and was about to expose it.

Here's one view on Simon Foy's role in the Dando case:

A Policeman’s lot is not a happy one!

By Stanley Best, from insidetime issue September 2008

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

Following two appeals to the Court of Appeal and at the end of his retrial for allegedly murdering the delightful Jill Dando, Barry George emerged from the Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court properly so called) into sunlight. I do not suppose that he expected to be feted, but still less, you may think, will he have expected to hear Commander Simon Foy (pictured), Head of the homicide and serious crime branch, say to assembled newspaper, radio and TV reporters on behalf of the Metropolitan Police that: “We are disappointed by today's verdict, but especially disappointed for Jill's family and friends”.

According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, to be disappointed means to be ‘sad or displeased because someone or something has failed to fulfil one's hopes or expectations.' Jill Dando's fiance and her family and friends must surely, from the outset, have hoped only that the person who had wickedly killed her would be found and dealt with appropriately. The last thing, one imagines, that they, in their continued distress at the loss of a loved one, would have wanted is that a man who has been acquitted by a jury of the murder, and who thus leaves the court without the stain of conviction for that offence on him should have been unjustly otherwise dealt. That they may well have been concerned that Jill Dando's killer, who cut her life so cruelly short, is still at large is entirely possible; we must all share that concern.

What was there, however, in the verdict of the jury to disappoint Commander Foy and the Metropolitan Police? His role and that of every Constable is to prevent crime and apprehend alleged offenders. Has he - and have others who have expressed similar views at a verdict with which they disagreed - forgotten the oath taken on appointment as Constable which is in its essence, if I recall it clearly, as follows: “I declare that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of Constable without favour or affection, malice or ill will”.

To say that one is disappointed with the jury's verdict in favour of Barry George suggests, does it not, at least doubt as to the verdict on the part of Commander Foy and the Metropolitan Police for whom he speaks?

Let us suppose the impossible and that Commander Foy had had the great misfortune to have been wrongly charged and convicted of murder which he did not commit and had spent eight years in prison before being acquitted. As he leaves the Old Bailey understandably feeling vindicated, the Commissioner of Police speaks to the many outstretched media microphones saying: "We are disappointed by today's verdict …”

Would not the unhappy Commander Foy in these, I stress, imaginary circumstances feel that an attempt was being made to rob him of the jury's verdict? Did it not occur to him that his own ill-chosen words would induce the same feeling in the unfortunate Barry George? Is it not time for the Commissioner and Chief Constables generally to put a stop to these damaging ex cathedra pronouncements which, of recent wars, have become all too common?

As if Commander Foy's words were not bad enough in themselves, the Sunday Telegraph (August 3) reported that: 'Scotland Yard officials suggested (that) their detectives had little appetite for a new enquiry (but that) a different police force may be brought in to re-examine the huge body of evidence amassed during the investigation into the 37 year-old Crimewatch presenter's murder’.

If this meant that the Metropolitan Police were belatedly admitting that their earlier investigation got it wrong, then that would perhaps make better sense of the above, although it would still leave open the question of why, in a supposedly disciplined force, the fact that 'their detectives had little appetite for a new enquiry' should be the deciding factor. Surely even these days any police officer in any force, whatever his or her appetite for the job in hand, should do what he or she is ordered to do? It of course makes the words of Commander Foy even less appropriate than they appeared at first blush and raises the question: is Barry George to receive a full apology from the Commissioner?

Hard on the heels of the Barry George case came the suggestion by a police officer that the reduction from a whole life tariff to one of 37 years was ‘unforgivable’. Does this particular policeman really think that he knows better than the Court of Appeal?

The Law Society’s Gazette (July 31) reports concerns by the Chairman of the Bar Council (which I, a barrister, share) that proposals to allow solicitors henceforth to undertake advocacy in the higher courts (i.e. Crown Courts and above) without having to undertake, as now, additional training but instead for there to be only 'voluntary accreditation' (in other words, in effect, self-certification) can but lead to lowering of the standards of advocacy which, in the interests of justice, must be maintained. The Barry George case should be seen as a wake-up call, for if things can go wrong under our present system, then lowering standards can only make for further injustice.

Some solicitors who had hitherto not thought of themselves as experienced advocates are being encouraged to think of higher courts advocacy as a way of making up for loss of income in other aspects of practice. That cannot alone ever be a justification to aspire to do higher courts advocacy, the skill for which is honed by experienced barristers over many years of practice at the Bar. Solicitors and barristers alike should stick to their own lasts. Just as it would be foolish for me to attempt conveyancing, for example, so too a solicitor, without at the very least full training, should not be permitted to dabble in higher courts advocacy. If we recall the old adage ‘horses for courses’ then justice should remain, as it must at all times be, our paramount concern.

Stanley Best is a practising barrister at Barnstaple Chambers
Telephone/ Fax/Answerphone: 01837 83763.

gypsypeg wrote:

tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.

Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?

Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything? That is rather a hysterical response in advance of the programme.

I suspect that you are very wrong because people do think that their taxes should be spent on solving crime. It is one of the clearest things that every political door stepper hears. "We want our money spent on the right things like locking up criminals."

I take exception at being told my post is a hysterical response. You are welcome to apologise.

I am familiar with Police going on TV asking for public assistance. This is normally the case in recent crimes - after a five year gap it's unlikely that a member of the public in the UK will suddenly remember some vital information. The crime did not take place in the UK.

Despite requests from members on this site and others - SY always said they could not comment as it is an ongoing investigation (don't ask me to find the reference - you'll just have to look)
I take it that SY is now going to say something very publicly despite the above statement. They're not just going to show a picture of the man.
Therefore - as the case has not officially been concluded, I feel that it compromises the investigation. A police officer making any kind of statement on TV before any result is achieved, compromises the case IMO. He shouldn't be there at all.

Re the taxes: giving the McCanns preferential treatment by using nearly 3 million pounds for this investigation does give people the right to see what it's being spent on.
Normally, the taxes paid cover criminal investigations by the police. I've never heard of a serious crime case which was dropped for lack of money. So why does just this one case merit so much extra money? The case could have been re-opened - and the British police force would have worked on it as they did before - for the price of a stamp.

Woofer wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Woofer wrote:
You`re totally right Tigger, in fact I haven`t heard one comment agreeing with SY doing this. At least Panorama have had the guts to now name Andy Redwood. We`ll have to wait and see if there`s any bias to what he says - maybe he has stayed impartial. But there`s obviously no way he can go on national TV and cast doubts about the McCann`s abduction story or I`m sure Carter Ruck would straight away be issuing a libel suit against the BBC. Equally he can`t really declare they had nothing to do with it - don`t see how he can do it without any bias. I tend to think it will be in the McCanns favour because the McCann`s would have had to approve it first, as they did with the previous Panorama programme.

Sorry Woofer I find it hard to understand your point.
Why made you think the MET Police need mccanns approval to do anything or say anything? Who are the mccanns?
Even the Queen cannot expect that!

Andy Redwood didn't get to become senior police detective by been inept ( at least I hope not).
Surely he knows where the lines are drawn.

Hello Aiyoyo - I am assuming that, like the last time Panorama did their programme `The Mystery of Madeleine McCann` with Richard Bilton, they allowed the McCanns to vet it before it went out and they were apparently ok with it (there is a link for this somewhere and I will try and find it). We also know the BBC`s slant on this case - although I suppose one can always hope they`ve seen the light.

I can`t see where I`ve said Andy Redwood is inept - I would never say such a thing. It must be very difficult for him to be interviewed without showing any bias at all and I trust he doesn`t. What I`m saying is that he cannot show bias as it would be totally unprofessional.

Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.

Apparently I didnt explain myself clearly.
What I meant was, if the Police is investigating a crime, surely there is no need for them to seek anyone's approval before they can comment or talk about it in public if they feel it is necessary.

. Surely the Police, being "law enforcer", is an independent entity not answerable to anyone (not even to royalty) except to the crown prosecutor if I am not wrong. Even royalty is not above the law, and if they were to fall foul of the law and are being investigated surely the Police are not obliged to ask them to vet anything before they've the liberty to come on national TV to talk about the case on a "need to basis". So in that sense, why should common folks mccanns expect to be treated differently. I should hardly think they have the right to ask to vet anything from the Police.

Also surely the Police, of all people, should know all about jeopardising trial and should avoid that pitfall. Hence one would imagine a senior Police Officer didnt acquire his rank by being inept is my reasoning. I would imagine Andy Redwood interview is a necessity basis ( though I cant fathom what it would be) rather than a wish to fill in the public on the case.

Of course he could prove me wrong. In that case people's worst fear may be proven correct.
I would be dead surprised if he comes on prematurely only to indicate they are still working hard to net the abductor, because there is no need to make a banal announcement like that.
When they used the words " the parents are adamant she was taken by a predator" and "last hope" one would imagine it isn't about their last hope to net the illusive abductor because the sky's the limit in that area, so where's there hope, let alone last hope.

aiyoyo wrote:

Woofer wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Woofer wrote:
You`re totally right Tigger, in fact I haven`t heard one comment agreeing with SY doing this. At least Panorama have had the guts to now name Andy Redwood. We`ll have to wait and see if there`s any bias to what he says - maybe he has stayed impartial. But there`s obviously no way he can go on national TV and cast doubts about the McCann`s abduction story or I`m sure Carter Ruck would straight away be issuing a libel suit against the BBC. Equally he can`t really declare they had nothing to do with it - don`t see how he can do it without any bias. I tend to think it will be in the McCanns favour because the McCann`s would have had to approve it first, as they did with the previous Panorama programme.

Sorry Woofer I find it hard to understand your point.
Why made you think the MET Police need mccanns approval to do anything or say anything? Who are the mccanns?
Even the Queen cannot expect that!

Andy Redwood didn't get to become senior police detective by been inept ( at least I hope not).
Surely he knows where the lines are drawn.

Hello Aiyoyo - I am assuming that, like the last time Panorama did their programme `The Mystery of Madeleine McCann` with Richard Bilton, they allowed the McCanns to vet it before it went out and they were apparently ok with it (there is a link for this somewhere and I will try and find it). We also know the BBC`s slant on this case - although I suppose one can always hope they`ve seen the light.

I can`t see where I`ve said Andy Redwood is inept - I would never say such a thing. It must be very difficult for him to be interviewed without showing any bias at all and I trust he doesn`t. What I`m saying is that he cannot show bias as it would be totally unprofessional.

Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.

Apparently I didnt explain myself clearly.
What I meant was, if the Police is investigating a crime, surely there is no need for them to seek anyone's approval before they can comment or talk about it in public if they feel it is necessary.

. Surely the Police, being "law enforcer", is an independent entity not answerable to anyone (not even to royalty) except to the crown prosecutor if I am not wrong. Even royalty is not above the law, and if they were to fall foul of the law and are being investigated surely the Police are not obliged to ask them to vet anything before they've the liberty to come on national TV to talk about the case on a "need to basis". So in that sense, why should common folks mccanns expect to be treated differently. I should hardly think they have the right to ask to vet anything from the Police.

Also surely the Police, of all people, should know all about jeopardising trial and should avoid that pitfall. Hence one would imagine a senior Police Officer didnt acquire his rank by being inept is my reasoning. I would imagine Andy Redwood interview is a necessity basis ( though I cant fathom what it would be) rather than a wish to fill in the public on the case.

Of course he could prove me wrong. In that case people's worst fear may be proven correct.
I would be dead surprised if he comes on prematurely only to indicate they are still working hard to net the abductor, because there is no need to make a banal announcement like that.
When they used the words " the parents are adamant she was taken by a predator" and "last hope" one would imagine it isn't about their last hope to net the illusive abductor because the sky's the limit in that area, so where's there hope, let alone last hope.

Hello Aiyoyo - I totally agree with you. I was just saying that the last documentary Panorama did on this went out with the McCanns` approval, but of course SY were not making comment in that one. Really I was pointing out this happened last time - in fact I think Jon Corner`s film was used in parts of it - so the McCanns could have insisted they approve this one as well. Of course it would be totally inappropriate, but then with all the unexplained power they seem to have over many establishment organisations, it wouldn`t surprise me. But I would end up having no faith in anything anymore.

tigger wrote:

gypsypeg wrote:

tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.

Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?

Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything? That is rather a hysterical response in advance of the programme.

I suspect that you are very wrong because people do think that their taxes should be spent on solving crime. It is one of the clearest things that every political door stepper hears. "We want our money spent on the right things like locking up criminals."

I take exception at being told my post is a hysterical response. You are welcome to apologise.

I am familiar with Police going on TV asking for public assistance. This is normally the case in recent crimes - after a five year gap it's unlikely that a member of the public in the UK will suddenly remember some vital information. The crime did not take place in the UK.

Despite requests from members on this site and others - SY always said they could not comment as it is an ongoing investigation (don't ask me to find the reference - you'll just have to look)
I take it that SY is now going to say something very publicly despite the above statement. They're not just going to show a picture of the man.
Therefore - as the case has not officially been concluded, I feel that it compromises the investigation. A police officer making any kind of statement on TV before any result is achieved, compromises the case IMO. He shouldn't be there at all.

Re the taxes: giving the McCanns preferential treatment by using nearly 3 million pounds for this investigation does give people the right to see what it's being spent on.
Normally, the taxes paid cover criminal investigations by the police. I've never heard of a serious crime case which was dropped for lack of money. So why does just this one case merit so much extra money? The case could have been re-opened - and the British police force would have worked on it as they did before - for the price of a stamp.

Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.

Maybe Commander Foy will conclude that the perpetrator of the crime was a swarthy ,oddball, loner of low intellect who , having no access to a car, escaped on foot?

oh dear, gypsypeg, it is you being silly, please read the definition of hysterical before using that word, Tigger made a reasoned point so far from hysteria-based.
I recognise your style of writing and am wondering if you have been here recently using another name?
no need for insults, cant you say politely you disagree? nothing wrong with that, plenty of disagreements here between posters over issues.

having fun trying to work out on the comments page who the posters paul castello, richard and sofia are...... they have a certain style I seem to recognise from a little site I know... its the way they talk about " Gonc" that is the clue.
descended into a free for all between rabid pros and antis just scoring points.... a shame. reasoned debate about what the programme should be covering has disappeared.

This is my third attempt at posting a comment.

Firstly, gypsypeg it isn't the done thing to say someone's post is hysterical or silly. There's no need for it. A reasonable debate isn't about insulting another person.

Secondly, it's worth reading the Operation Grange remit (has a topic all of its own) to see that this isn't just any old review/paperwork exercise.

russiandoll wrote:having fun trying to work out on the comments page who the posters paul castello, richard and sofia are...... they have a certain style I seem to recognise from a little site I know... its the way they talk about " Gonc" that is the clue.
descended into a free for all between rabid pros and antis just scoring points.... a shame. reasoned debate about what the programme should be covering has disappeared.

Paul Castello is really good. He sounds like a PR executive of the old school. Beautifully structured sentences, calm and reasonable sounding arguments.
10/10 for style, but content - sorry, don't agree.

Yes, annoying this point scoring. Using David Payne's name and photo is also not good.
I wonder what the site is going to look like tomorrow, the Radio Times apparently has nothing to do with the BBC and I expect the staff are free for the weekend.

Gipsypeg wrote:
Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.
unquote

So far I'm silly and hysterical. I can probably expect another one of your labels.
I stated clearly that IMO the police shouldn't be there in the first place. So it's immaterial what they are going to say as far as I'm concerned.

You must have missed some of the finer points of this case. The case could and still can be re-opened at the request of the McCanns by sending such a request to the PJ. If that were done, the British police would cooperate closely with the PJ in any case. As indeed they did five years ago. That was my point.

The point about the money is that these are Home Office Funds completely separate from the budget SY have. Clearly there are and have been many cases which are costly - but there is as far as I know no precedent for making such a large sum available to review a case.

You should apologise because you were rude - not because you are wrong.

Well it's made my Sunday.
That Paul Costello is grating now. He's another one that WILL not answer a proper question or valid point.
He's resorted to using 'Haters'. A dreadful word, not to be used lightly.
I don't hate anybody.
I just don't believe something I'm being 'forced to believe'. It's hardly a crime.

The Slave wrote:Well it's made my Sunday.
That Paul Costello is grating now. He's another one that WILL not answer a proper question or valid point.
He's resorted to using 'Haters'. A dreadful word, not to be used lightly.
I don't hate anybody.
I just don't believe something I'm being 'forced to believe'. It's hardly a crime.

What a shame! I just gave him such a glowing report - I'd expected better from him. I haven't looked for a couple of hours, too exhausting.

tigger wrote:Gipsypeg wrote:
Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.
unquote

So far I'm silly and hysterical. I can probably expect another one of your labels.
I stated clearly that IMO the police shouldn't be there in the first place. So it's immaterial what they are going to say as far as I'm concerned.

You must have missed some of the finer points of this case. The case could and still can be re-opened at the request of the McCanns by sending such a request to the PJ. If that were done, the British police would cooperate closely with the PJ in any case. As indeed they did five years ago. That was my point.

The point about the money is that these are Home Office Funds completely separate from the budget SY have. Clearly there are and have been many cases which are costly - but there is as far as I know no precedent for making such a large sum available to review a case.

You should apologise because you were rude - not because you are wrong.

What would Ben Needhams family give to have received even 1% of the finances and assistance the McCanns have received. Every missing child is important and they should all be investigated equally. If there is a sum of money available for such investigations, it should be shared equally and resources allocated to the extent the budget allows.

It is an extraordinary amount of money that has been spent on this review. Why has the Fund not made a donation, that is what the Fund is for - to aid in the search. Such a contribution may well have released both money and resources for SY to use on other reviews or investigations. imo.

sami wrote:

tigger wrote:Gipsypeg wrote:
Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.
unquote

So far I'm silly and hysterical. I can probably expect another one of your labels.
I stated clearly that IMO the police shouldn't be there in the first place. So it's immaterial what they are going to say as far as I'm concerned.

You must have missed some of the finer points of this case. The case could and still can be re-opened at the request of the McCanns by sending such a request to the PJ. If that were done, the British police would cooperate closely with the PJ in any case. As indeed they did five years ago. That was my point.

The point about the money is that these are Home Office Funds completely separate from the budget SY have. Clearly there are and have been many cases which are costly - but there is as far as I know no precedent for making such a large sum available to review a case.

You should apologise because you were rude - not because you are wrong.

What would Ben Needhams family give to have received even 1% of the finances and assistance the McCanns have received. Every missing child is important and they should all be investigated equally. If there is a sum of money available for such investigations, it should be shared equally and resources allocated to the extent the budget allows.

It is an extraordinary amount of money that has been spent on this review. Why has the Fund not made a donation, that is what the Fund is for - to aid in the search. Such a contribution may well have released both money and resources for SY to use on other reviews or investigations. imo.

Totally agree Sami. Excellent post.

The bolded is a excellent point! I'd love the McCanns try to answer that one.

tigger wrote:Gipsypeg wrote:
Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.
unquote

So far I'm silly and hysterical. I can probably expect another one of your labels.
I stated clearly that IMO the police shouldn't be there in the first place. So it's immaterial what they are going to say as far as I'm concerned.

You must have missed some of the finer points of this case. The case could and still can be re-opened at the request of the McCanns by sending such a request to the PJ. If that were done, the British police would cooperate closely with the PJ in any case. As indeed they did five years ago. That was my point.

The point about the money is that these are Home Office Funds completely separate from the budget SY have. Clearly there are and have been many cases which are costly - but there is as far as I know no precedent for making such a large sum available to review a case.

You should apologise because you were rude - not because you are wrong.

Oh should I? Well sorry for that. I prefer Tony's endorsement rather than your grating demands for apologies for nothing.

We clearly disagree that the fate of a little child is important enough for money to be spent on it. Personally I would wholeheartedly support the same amount now being spent on the Ben Needham case because I think such use of funds is far more beneficial than much of our government spending.

As for the DCI Redwood being on Panorama, I think that is excellent news and look forward to what he says. It is perfectly normal for the police to comment on cases and ask for support etc. The fact you don't like it is largely irrelevant. It is going to happen so lets wait and see what he says.

Why has the Fund not made a donation, that is what the
Fund is for - to aid in the search. Such a contribution may well have
released both money and resources for SY to use on other reviews or
investigations. imo.

Is that ever going to be likely? In the first year they only spent 13% of the fund money on the search, so if that was all their daughter was worth, I can't see them offering to support others.

It's a mystery (am I allowed to use that word?) as to where exactly the funds have gone to.

gypsypeg wrote:

tigger wrote:Gipsypeg wrote:
Why should I apologise? Stating what you did about police before hearing what they have to say is silly. Tony has agreed that I make a very fair point about the commenting by police on UK TV.
There was no way in which the UK police could re-open a case that was not even theirs to open or close. There was only the option of a review.
Oh and there are a lot of cases, investigations, court trials etc which cost in excess of 3 million pounds. This is not a rarity these days.
unquote

So far I'm silly and hysterical. I can probably expect another one of your labels.
I stated clearly that IMO the police shouldn't be there in the first place. So it's immaterial what they are going to say as far as I'm concerned.

You must have missed some of the finer points of this case. The case could and still can be re-opened at the request of the McCanns by sending such a request to the PJ. If that were done, the British police would cooperate closely with the PJ in any case. As indeed they did five years ago. That was my point.

The point about the money is that these are Home Office Funds completely separate from the budget SY have. Clearly there are and have been many cases which are costly - but there is as far as I know no precedent for making such a large sum available to review a case.

You should apologise because you were rude - not because you are wrong.

Oh should I? Well sorry for that. I prefer Tony's endorsement rather than your grating demands for apologies for nothing.

We clearly disagree that the fate of a little child is important enough for money to be spent on it. Personally I would wholeheartedly support the same amount now being spent on the Ben Needham case because I think such use of funds is far more beneficial than much of our government spending.

As for the DCI Redwood being on Panorama, I think that is excellent news and look forward to what he says. It is perfectly normal for the police to comment on cases and ask for support etc. The fact you don't like it is largely irrelevant. It is going to happen so lets wait and see what he says.

Ah! Grating demands! A new one, thank you.
You are using the typical ploy of trolls to answer a straight question with a non sequitur. (see the bolded part) .
Where have I said anything of the sort?
I will not answer any more of your posts, which seem to be somewhat lacking in logic. I will be interested to see how you answer my post on the subject of the trial.