David Cameron was 'pressured into new Madeleine McCann inquiry by News International'

This has probably been posted elswhere on the forum but I feel that it is of such significance that it deserves a thread of its own.

Remember that one of the first reactions of the McCanns was to call Sky News, since then they have courted the media throughout. The head of the media monitoring unit was put in place in the early days as were many others. There were problems in the early days but the journalists, editors etc. were soon brought into line.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been exposed for their cosy relationship with Murdoch which now seems to be turning sour thanks to the Leveson enquiry.

How much profit has News International made from the Madeleine stories? The death of a child would have provided stories for a few weeks, maybe months and then it would have phased out, but these abduction stories, sightings etc. could go on for decades. Murdoch and News International must have been ecstatic to have one of the biggest stories ever.

So now we have Murdoch and our government ministers scratching each others backs and our Prime Minister being pressurised into ordering a biased review of the case in support of the suspects, at Scotland Yard.

So who was first to jump on the bandwagon, Murdoch or Brown? Is the Media supporting the Government or the Government support the media in return for favours?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
David Cameron was 'pressured into new Madeleine McCann inquiry by News International'

The Prime Minister came under pressure from News International to set up the new inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, according to this evening’s BBC Panorama programme - ‘Madeleine: The Last Hope?’

In 2011 The Sun printed an open letter on their front page from The McCanns to David Cameron, appealing to him as a parent to agree to a review Photo: PA

12:41PM BST 25 Apr 2012


The Home Office has declined to explain why they chose to look again at the unsolved case above any other but a source at Number 10 has said that David Cameron “acted as a sympathetic parent.”

In 2011 The Sun printed an open letter on their front page from The McCanns to Mr Cameron, appealing to him as a parent to agree to a review.

But tonight Panorama will claim there was also much more going on behind the scenes to try to influence the Prime Minister.

Downing Street sources have revealed to the programme that influence was being exerted on Number 10 by News International and by The Sun newspaper, as well as by the McCanns.

Do we think then that the British taxpayer is not after all paying for this Scotland Yard investigation? If Cameron considers it is better for us to think we are throwing millions at this one case (and ignoring all the other missing children) than to find out where the money is really coming from, the depths of corruption must be greater than anything we have previously suspected. God help us all.

Ashwarya wrote:Do we think then that the British taxpayer is not after all paying for this Scotland Yard investigation? If Cameron considers it is better for us to think we are throwing millions at this one case (and ignoring all the other missing children) than to find out where the money is really coming from, the depths of corruption must be greater than anything we have previously suspected. God help us all.

Who knows who is picking up the tab for all this, or even how the money has been spent. Has any work at all (apart from a trip to Barcelona) been done by Scotland Yard? I would just love to see a breakdown of the costs.

With that quote from Cameron, maybe now is the time to press for a full public enquiry. After all, if he as squandered £3m of our money on an obviously biased review at the request of News International and the suspects, he owes us, doesn't he?

sharonl wrote:

Ashwarya wrote:Do we think then that the British taxpayer is not after all paying for this Scotland Yard investigation? If Cameron considers it is better for us to think we are throwing millions at this one case (and ignoring all the other missing children) than to find out where the money is really coming from, the depths of corruption must be greater than anything we have previously suspected. God help us all.

Who knows who is picking up the tab for all this, or even how the money has been spent. Has any work at all (apart from a trip to Barcelona) been done by Scotland Yard? I would just love to see a breakdown of the costs.

With that quote from Cameron, maybe now is the time to press for a full public enquiry. After all, if he as squandered £3m of our money on an obviously biased review at the request of News International and the suspects, he owes us, doesn't he?

I took it as a hint a couple of nights ago that the money for the review was privately funded. The figure given was 0.70% of the individual's worth.

There are some strange people visit, but now and again some very interesting ones. How to encourage the latter to stay I wonder?

I did once see a breakdown of newspaper circulation in 2007 - seem to remember sales had dropped by 14%. Which must have been disastrous.

Spaniel wrote:

sharonl wrote:

Ashwarya wrote:Do we think then that the British taxpayer is not after all paying for this Scotland Yard investigation? If Cameron considers it is better for us to think we are throwing millions at this one case (and ignoring all the other missing children) than to find out where the money is really coming from, the depths of corruption must be greater than anything we have previously suspected. God help us all.

Who knows who is picking up the tab for all this, or even how the money has been spent. Has any work at all (apart from a trip to Barcelona) been done by Scotland Yard? I would just love to see a breakdown of the costs.

With that quote from Cameron, maybe now is the time to press for a full public enquiry. After all, if he as squandered £3m of our money on an obviously biased review at the request of News International and the suspects, he owes us, doesn't he?

I took it as a hint a couple of nights ago that the money for the review was privately funded. The figure given was 0.70% of the individual's worth.

There are some strange people visit, but now and again some very interesting ones. How to encourage the latter to stay I wonder?

Could you explain Spaniel? I don't understand at all?

I don`t condone Cameron giving in to pressure, but it`s a well known fact that the media moguls can control and bring down governments as easily as clicking their fingers. One would hope the LI will curb this but I very much doubt it.

tigger wrote:

Spaniel wrote:

sharonl wrote:

Ashwarya wrote:Do we think then that the British taxpayer is not after all paying for this Scotland Yard investigation? If Cameron considers it is better for us to think we are throwing millions at this one case (and ignoring all the other missing children) than to find out where the money is really coming from, the depths of corruption must be greater than anything we have previously suspected. God help us all.

Who knows who is picking up the tab for all this, or even how the money has been spent. Has any work at all (apart from a trip to Barcelona) been done by Scotland Yard? I would just love to see a breakdown of the costs.

With that quote from Cameron, maybe now is the time to press for a full public enquiry. After all, if he as squandered £3m of our money on an obviously biased review at the request of News International and the suspects, he owes us, doesn't he?

I took it as a hint a couple of nights ago that the money for the review was privately funded. The figure given was 0.70% of the individual's worth.

There are some strange people visit, but now and again some very interesting ones. How to encourage the latter to stay I wonder?

Could you explain Spaniel? I don't understand at all?

Do you mean finance tigger? I may have got it wrong, certainly no one else seemed to notice it. Friday night I think or maybe thursday, some interesting posts about double glazing owner. A mention was made on the bottom of a post stating the review cost, the double glazing man's worth and that RC was 0.70% of the DG man's worth. No one commented so I assumed I was misconstruing it.

Well done, Rebekah, well done!
 
The PJ and Yvonne Martin warned them against the media but the McCanns didn't listen.
Within a few days Kate and Gerry became slaves of that tsunami and they didn't manage to free themselves of them.
It is very difficult to survive the power of the media, they saw what happened to Diana, and they still thought that it would be different in their case.
 
It was like a chess play, the competence of the media killing the King.
What a tough lesson to learn.
 
What a terrible trap.

From the transcript of the Lorraine Kelly interview Aprl 2010.  

LK: Mmm...Because that’s really what this is all about and the search has to keep going on – What sort of stage is the investigation at or what sort of stage is the campaign at right now?

GM: From an investigation point of view erm, I think it’s fairly important to say that from law enforcement they’re not doing anything actively and haven’t been for a long time and that’s incredibly frustrating so we’ve had our small team working away in the background and erm, in terms of new leads I think we’ve put out most of the important information that we had this time last year, we had a very good response and most of those leads have been worked probably er as much as we can with Dave and his team. So at this point what we’re really trying to do is to get the government to review everything and it’s very difficult because a lot of information held in, in with British police there’s a lot in Portugal, it’s not all in one file whereas other information we’ve got we’re happy to make available but there hasn’t been a comprehensive review, there hasn’t been anything about which lines of enquiry er...(unintelligible)... for the investigation and that’s just something we feel is fundamental and should happen and it’s not right that an innocent , you know, vulnerable British citizen is, is essentially given up on, and I don’t think it’s right that as parents that we have to drive the search – Of course we will but yer know, not everyone has had the same resources and support that we’ve had to be able to do that and I think it’s pretty cruel.

So imo the McCanns were so sure that a government review would work from the abduction theory that they were pressuring them.. I can see that having the abducting stated and acted on officially will clear them from all suspicion.
So  eventually Cameron was indeed forced by Brooks to order the review - this is 2010 he's talking.

I am now convinced the remit was to 'legalise' the abduction. Therefore the remit included the word.

Result: lots more money for NI
Abduction is official.

So as we're running up to 6 million we may assume that it's cheap at the price?

I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

The remit was to treat the case as if the abduction had happened in the UK.

It doesn't need all the detectives to whitewash it. Just the few at the top.

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

Châteleine, I agree with you. If it was a white wash, the Yard could have stopped at the end of the review and not asking  to become a probe.

Most of all : Portuguese authorities agree with the Yard's involvement, even the PJ do.

There are at least two wolves here.

marconi wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

Châteleine, I agree with you. If it was a white wash, the Yard could have stopped at the end of the review and not asking  to become a probe.

Most of all : Portuguese authorities agree with the Yard's involvement, even the PJ do.

There are at least two wolves here.

During the first years a lot of us thought that the McCanns' power had to do with a group of pedophiles that belonged to the British government. We had no idea that it had to do with NOW.
At a certain moment I started to doubt about it: could it be that the whole UK was populated only by pedophiles?
And the Mcanns had the proof?

tigger wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

The remit was to treat the case as if the abduction had happened in the UK.

It doesn't need all the detectives to whitewash it. Just the few at the top.

Yep, plus no doubt the opinion of the people during the selection was very important.

lj wrote:

tigger wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

The remit was to treat the case as if the abduction had happened in the UK.

It doesn't need all the detectives to whitewash it. Just the few at the top.

Yep, plus no doubt the opinion of the people during the selection was very important.

Even so, all the coppers selected (was it 35 in all?) have partners and families and it would be far too risky trying to keep a secret like that - look what`s happened with the SAS bloke`s ex-wife recently blabbing about Diana`s murder.  It would come out sooner or later.

Treat it as if the 'abduction' occurred in the UK, eh?  If it had happened in the UK the police would NEVER just accept 'abduction' at face value, whatever the task direction was supposed to be.  Every person who has something to hide calls out: 'abduction!' This is so well known as to be a cliche.

PeterMac regularly quoted the Police Handbook: "If in doubt, think Murder"
I cannot imagine any weathered detective not being in "doubt" in this case ...

Now read that phrase as if he had said
"We are going to treat it as if the report of the abduction had occurred in the UK."

I can never find where I posted a copy of UK policy and procedures relating to abduction, it was at the time people were despondent of the Grange remit's wording .

 The policy clearly had IF IN DOUBT THINK MURDER in capitals. Meaning : a vital point of the policy document.
 Reports were not to be taken at face value  [ just as you would expect] because such a report might be a means of diverting police attention from a crime relating to the disappearance.
 Great attention should be paid to the person reporting that a child had been abducted.

It is here on the forum in some detail.

russiandoll wrote:I can never find where I posted a copy of UK policy and procedures relating to abduction, it was at the time people were despondent of the Grange remit's wording .

The policy clearly had IF IN DOUBT THINK MURDER in capitals. Meaning : a vital point of the policy document..

I don't think this is the same policy document, it's a Police Manual (2005 I think) on Missing Persons:

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

But on page 22 it says, unmistakably and in big bold letters:

REMEMBER, IF IN DOUBT, THINK THE WORST UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED

Châtelaine wrote:I may be a lone wolf here, but I think that the McCs should have kept the Chinese saying in mind: "Be careful what you wish for" ... Nobody can convince me that ALL of the Met detectives would collaborate in a whitewash.

No Chatelaine you are not alone in your theory....I too believe in that saying "be careful what you wish for"
 IMO the Mcs just couldn't wait for this case to just fade away never knowing if they were ever going to be found out.....so they had to push the hand of Government/SY, hoping and praying for them to review the case, and co e up with no evidence, sadly for them the case has been re-opened, I know it's been called a 'investigation' by SY.....................
But we all know its been re-opened, and this is why the Mcs are shell shocked and have kept a low profile.
The Met are on to them

Tony Bennett wrote:II don't think this is the same policy document, it's a Police Manual (2005 I think) on Missing Persons:

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

But on page 22 it says, unmistakably and in big bold letters:

REMEMBER, IF IN DOUBT, THINK THE WORST UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED

The relevant sentence on the link actually appears on page 12, just in case anyone else gets confused as I did.

IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER

Well, if that is from the Police Manual, then the Yard cant ignore the evolving inconsistencies and not be doubtful.....

And if they were to treat this as IF the abduction happened in the UK and reported in the UK...then there is only one inevitable road to go down ie think *Murder* and who could have committed it ? How why and where ?

I would be dead surprised if they went this length to interview the 38 persons of interest to no purpose ? So the question has to be what is THAT goal ?
Would it be to net the abductor or to net the perpetrator ?

p, 14 For example, there have been a number of murders where the perpetrator has reported the victim to the police as a missing person.

p. 9 Homicide
One of the fundamental facts to be determined in a missing person investigation is the reason why the subject has disappeared. In cases where the circumstances are suspicious or are unexplained, use the maxim: IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER
Failure to apply such thinking in past cases has led to the loss of valuable investigative opportunities and could ultimately result in failure to trace the missing person or to establish sufficient evidence to convict a perpetrator.

p. 23 REMEMBER, IF IN DOUBT, THINK THE WORST UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED

IMO, it could have been a homicide and just death by accident. It is what a believe. Somebody there made a terrible mistake and the girl died. At least it is what I hope.  Murder is a terrible thing to think of, in Maddie's case.

 I think her parents loved her but they were neglect and irresponsible, imo.

PeterM and others are quoting from the Police handbook - it is what the Police are told to do.

An ex-FBI profiler wrote in his book Mind Hunter that in the case of missing children where the parents claim kidnap, always presume the opposite.

Please ignore my last post regarding page numbers, seems the error is entirely mine - page 9 was what I actually meant. But hey confusion is good, no?