About Kate McCann's Appointment on Missing People Website

The fragrant Rebekah was born in Warrington , now part of Greater Manchester[ I think !] close to Merseyside. She is def not Scouse.
my post was not meant to demonstrate any fondness for Liverpool or its people, no better or worse than any other city or citizens. I get uncomfortable reading posts which are very personal, that is all.

Amscreen supports Kate McCann’s Missing People campaign

11 July 2012

The UK’s largest digital out of home media owner Amscreen has today announced that they will be supporting the Missing People charity by donating network space towards the biggest digital billboard campaign in British history.

The campaign, backed by the charity’s ambassador Kate McCann, will see the UK’s largest digital media owner broadcast appeals nationally across its network of screens. The flexible, real-time nature of the network offers the charity the ability to drive national awareness literally within minutes of the individual being reported as missing. With content being donated on around 3000 sites across Amscreen’s healthcare and forecourt networks, the ads will reach nearly 25million UK adults in these vital days after the initial missing report. Advertisements will include details of individual missing people, creating awareness of the new number to call for sighting – 116 000 – and harnessing the public’s help to join the search.

CEO Simon Sugar said “Amscreen are delighted to be able to support such a worthy cause and to be a part of an unprecedented digital campaign such as this. Flexibility and speed are both essential when it comes to advertising Missing People appeals, and our ability to get content on to screens across the UK within a matter of minutes is a great advantage and we hope it will be of great benefit to the campaign.”

Ross Miller, Director of Fundraising and Communications, Missing People said “For the charity, the immediacy of Amscreen’s digital network means it’s perfect for driving awareness across the entire UK literally within minutes of an appeal for a missing child being issued. Amscreen has been able to provide us a very reliable, simple and quick way to deliver this kind of message nationally with no fuss. The longstanding commitment to this issue by Amscreen, and their renewed support via the Outdoor Media Centre, will make a valuable contribution to the search.”

The value of the total advertising space donated by Amscreen and other companies within the outdoor advertising industry is estimated at over £1million, and the campaign is estimated to reach a record number during the summer months when – thanks to the Olympics – Britain will be at its busiest.

ENDS

For further information, please contact Sophie Kay (Amscreen press office) at Frank PR – 020 7693 6999 / amscreen@frankpr.it

For further information on the Missing People campaign, please visit the Missing People website:
www.missingpeople.org.uk/kate

Notes to editors

About Amscreen:

Amscreen is the UK’s largest Digital Out of Home media company, offering a robust, end-to-end digital signage solution via its unique wireless plug and play technology. Their networks broadcast from 3,500 sites across the UK and are an effective communication tool for clients such as BP, Shell and WH Smith and a range of blue-chip advertisers such as Coca Cola, Ford, Sky, Visa and BT.

As well as operating in petrol, convenience, leisure and travel locations, Amscreen provides screens to the healthcare industry. Its Healthcare network uses revolutionary software to provide customers with the ability to create and broadcast their own messages that can be viewed in prime dwelling areas such as waiting rooms, corridors and coffee shops.

Amscreen recently expanded into Europe following a deal with BP Europe SE that will see digital signage screens installed in forecourts across the continent in Germany, Poland, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria.

The live Amscreen mapping system allows advertisers to locate screens across the UK.

Visit http://www.amscreen.co.uk/screen-media/mapping_tool.html to view the live mapping link for further information.

anil39200 wrote:

dai thomas wrote:http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/660919/

Have a look at the date!

I guess they felt it's time to capitalise now.

Good one!

No mention of GMC , ???

aquila wrote:

russiandoll wrote: Don't I know it aquila........it was the book of the truth which was the catalyst for me reading more of the police files then joining this forum to put in my two pence worth !

Perhaps Kate can influence European policing in the future. Treat people nicely, offer tea and coffee, drive at reasonable speeds, dress smartly and don't smoke. The rest of the world searching for a missing child might also like to take a few tips there. Oh, and don't talk in a plummy voice either.

Argh! sorry to do it again buuut....

In England you have a right, thanks to PACE 1984 Code C, when being interviewed in a Police station to:

Legal advice - which also has its own little sub rules,

A continuous period of uninterrupted rest without questioning in a given 24 hours,

Interviews should not exceed 2 hours,

You should not be made to stand,

You should be given refreshment breaks,

You should be deemed as fit for interview by the Custody Officer,

Your interview should not be carried out in an opressive manner,

The Officer in Charge should identify himself to you

and

The room you are being interviewed in should have proper ventilation, heating and light.



Can't remember if the old smoking ban in the workplace was in force that long ago.



So in England she would have got the things she expected other than perhaps the plummy voice.....

K.

Meagain wrote:
Can't remember if the old smoking ban in the workplace was in force that long ago.

The ban on smoking was fascinating.
You put a man in the cells, and do not allow him tobacco, because of the blanket ban, and Health and safety.
Then you interview him, after many hours of nicotine deprivation.
Is this "Fair" under the English rules ?
Whose rights prevail?

Meagain wrote:

aquila wrote:

russiandoll wrote: Don't I know it aquila........it was the book of the truth which was the catalyst for me reading more of the police files then joining this forum to put in my two pence worth !

Perhaps Kate can influence European policing in the future. Treat people nicely, offer tea and coffee, drive at reasonable speeds, dress smartly and don't smoke. The rest of the world searching for a missing child might also like to take a few tips there. Oh, and don't talk in a plummy voice either.

Argh! sorry to do it again buuut....

In England you have a right, thanks to PACE 1984 Code C, when being interviewed in a Police station to:

Legal advice - which also has its own little sub rules,

A continuous period of uninterrupted rest without questioning in a given 24 hours,

Interviews should not exceed 2 hours,

You should not be made to stand,

You should be given refreshment breaks,

You should be deemed as fit for interview by the Custody Officer,

Your interview should not be carried out in an opressive manner,

The Officer in Charge should identify himself to you

and

The room you are being interviewed in should have proper ventilation, heating and light.



Can't remember if the old smoking ban in the workplace was in force that long ago.



So in England she would have got the things she expected other than perhaps the plummy voice.....

K.

But Kate wasn't in UK. Kate was in a Portuguese police station. Maybe there is an opportunity for Kate to transform Portugal's police service by working really hard (who knows it may lead to a job in European parliament - wouldn't surprise me if that's in the wider agenda) and advocating PACE as every European's human right.

Would you have rather that she had had the bottom of her soles hit with a rubber tube by her interogator as happened to a lady doctor in Iraq, Aquilla?

What she expected was not unreasonable and I don't believe for one minute that anybody here would use the saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do" to advocate the unfair and sometimes cruel treatment that some countries dish out to people they hold for questioning.



PeterMac, do the exceptions to the rules on smoking not apply to a person in cells?

Meagain wrote:Would you have rather that she had had the bottom of her soles hit with a rubber tube by her interogator as happened to a lady doctor in Iraq, Aquilla?

What she expected was not unreasonable and I don't believe for one minute that anybody here would use the saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do" to advocate the unfair and sometimes cruel treatment that some countries dish out to people they hold for questioning.



PeterMac, do the exceptions to the rules on smoking not apply to a person in cells?

We're talking about Portugal, not a despotic/third world country. If Kate wasn't offered tea or something to eat (how you could swallow food when your child is missing is beyond my comprehension) then she had a mouth in her head to ask. If she didn't know who was in charge of the case - ditto. Who cares what a police officer is wearing and if he/she smokes in such circumstances? On being taken back to the police station as they had some information they drove quickly - time was of the essence no doubt. Not good enough for Kate though. Her famous mantra showed her regard for the Portuguese police - those that were looking for her daughter. Things weren't good enough for Kate. The sad thing is Kate and Gerry's neglect of their children wasn't good enough for Madeleine and remember they could have been prosecuted for that but weren't.

Sorry about the tired and unfunny joke about liverpool. You are right you shouldnt judge a whole population by one person. I got carried away with a humorous series of posts. Unfortunately unless one laughs just a little with all this then one will cry a great deal.no offence was meant. However

Will do some research, meagain, but the lengthy process of approx 11 hours was in September? [ excessive, yes, but then again she refused to answer rather important questions].
The episode where there is a rather immature, petulant critique of the police in the book was 4th May as far as I can recall. It struck me as rather incongruous that a mother who had undergone the trauma of the abduction of her child hours previously would have been sufficiently aware to absorb such trivial details as casually dressed detectives or the irrelevant matter of their smoking.
Hardly important when what matters is a job being done to establish hte whereabouts of a 3 year old.
It was May 4th that she complained about not being offered refreshment, these niceties may have been forgotten about by a police department which had not until that date been placed under such pressure when a tourist's child went missing and their initial assessment did not match the claim of the parents.
Mrs McCann did not attend the police station alone, did she? Perhaps her companion could have asked for basic info such as the whereabouts of a toilet and drinking water.
To compare a developped European country like Portugal with some despotic regime is hardly fair.

anil39200 wrote:Sorry about the tired and unfunny joke about liverpool. You are right you shouldnt judge a whole population by one person. I got carried away with a humorous series of posts. Unfortunately unless one laughs just a little with all this then one will cry a great deal.no offence was meant. However

I understand anil, I also have cracked jokes in posts. we do I agree need a dark humour to cope with some of what we confront when reading about this case. I made the mistake of visiting jatyk2 recently and came across personal remarks about TBennett, G Amaral and Pat Brown over there, way more insulting and offensive including foul language than what you posted about Liverpool !

Thanks for that Russian Doll. Yes it may only seem to be a few of them over there judging by the same few names that always appear to post,but they certainly have a curious view of things. The language and manner of their attacks makes it a place to be avoided I would say.

pop over now and then simply to see if they are actually debating anything.......it is always a blind acceptance of the parents claims and hatred for anyone who doubts their story. Nothing will change so taking a look seems pointless. A shame the more reasonable pro the parents story won't come here to discuss things reasonably. Could be interesting.

When I became interested in this story and realised that Team McCann's version of events had to be taken with a bucketload of salt, I thought that I must for fairness sake read the pro sites as well. What an eye-opener that was - nothing but hate-filled people hurling insults. On one occasion, a posting of mine in another name from a different site was there for ridicule. I felt quite honoured! I don't look there now though - it's good that they have a place to vent their spleen but for anyone else you feel as if you need to be decontaminated afterwards.

russiandoll wrote:pop over now and then simply to see if they are actually debating anything.......it is always a blind acceptance of the parents claims and hatred for anyone who doubts their story. Nothing will change so taking a look seems pointless. A shame the more reasonable pro the parents story won't come here to discuss things reasonably. Could be interesting.

Why not ask Kololi/me again?

Have to admit I was curious about their take on the Birch claims, have looked there on and off over past few days. What I cannot get my head around is their reaction to the complaints about Kate McCann's new ambassadorial role with the missing people charity. I would imagine that a fair proportion of those objecting are not against it because of doubts about the abduction claim, but are, if accepting that allegation , appalled that a charity giving advice on keeping children safe and who have dealings with the police are associating themselves in this way with a woman who has not once publicly urged people not to have the false sense of security she and her husband and friends had during that holiday and who did not comply with a request for a reconstruction from the Portuguese police and who refused to answer questions even when told she was hindering the investigation.
This is why the great majority of the objections are being made imo

russiandoll wrote:pop over now and then simply to see if they are actually debating anything.......it is always a blind acceptance of the parents claims and hatred for anyone who doubts their story. Nothing will change so taking a look seems pointless. A shame the more reasonable pro the parents story won't come here to discuss things reasonably. Could be interesting.

What's to debate? All they have is Tanner. There is no other 'evidence' to support their line is there.

I think those people have simply just decided to support K&G come what may because, though they'd never admit it, they think it was an accident.

It happens in all cases, even Casey Anthony had supporters, in a case that is very similar to MM's. I do find it interesting that many of those supporting the McCanns took a different line on the Anthony case - they declared the dogs were correct in that case but they were wrong in this case.

Their support of K&G is religious. They'll never change their minds now

of course they won't tcat, but it would be interesting if less rabid individuals with more logic and reason could come and debate the issues here, instead of those who just scream that we have read propaganda in the shape of mistranslated police files etc. A place for this kind of discussion would be a real plus in my eyes, it is a shame positions have become so entrenched. When Textusa on her recent blog described the Maddie case being played out on a football pitch I felt like the poor child was the ball being kicked about. I have to say I hold out little hope of the important issues in this affair being debated sensibly by people with opposing views, as you said so succinctly, the hardline supporters of K and G do act like a cult and they do only have Tanner and that ain't saying much is it ?!

russiandoll wrote: of course they won't tcat, but it would be interesting if less rabid individuals with more logic and reason could come and debate the issues here, instead of those who just scream that we have read propaganda in the shape of mistranslated police files etc. A place for this kind of discussion would be a real plus in my eyes, it is a shame positions have become so entrenched. When Textusa on her recent blog described the Maddie case being played out on a football pitch I felt like the poor child was the ball being kicked about. I have to say I hold out little hope of the important issues in this affair being debated sensibly by people with opposing views, as you said so succinctly, the hardline supporters of K and G do act like a cult and they do only have Tanner and that ain't saying much is it ?!

Brilliant post, you summed it up perfectly I think I agree there's little hope (though I'm not sure which issues you mean - they'd just stick to GM's line that there's no evidence any harm has come to Madeleine, and they completely ignore all the evidence of the changing stories of the McCanns and their friends don't they)

Imagine if six members of this forum and six of them were on the same jury - we'd never reach a verdict

Aquilla, I would guess that for people who have never previously been questioned by the Police, the whole affair might be a bit scary and the last thing on your mind would be requesting refreshments and checking to see that the interview room was well ventilated. In that context it may seem odd that she mentions it.

Mrs McCann complained though in her book didn't she, or am I off the mark? By the time she was writing that she was home safe and in her own familiar surroundings so maybe she had time to reflect or maybe she had a spare page or two that she needed to find some words to fill - I truly haven't a clue.

Here, in England, she would have been provided with what she moaned about, simple as, and when one considers some of the stories that hit the press from around the world related to "Police interviewing" I am damn glad we have the standards that we have here generally. I would hope that Portugal and other countries follow our example.

It does seem like a bit of nit picking but surely standards are standards and no, even as a smoker I would not expect a Police person to be puffing around me whilst I was in custody regardless of the country I was in, and if they did light up I actually think it would put the fear of God up me as to how I might be treated.

Surely it protects the Police too by having a code such as PACE. If it is followed and recorded as I believe it is meant to be, treatment is more likely to be fair and humane and there is unlikely to be claims of Police brutality etc etc etc.

K.

Yep, those evil, brutal, beer swigging, sardine munching Portuguese police. Hmmm. How do we know what happened in that police station. Justine McGuiness was there wasn't she, would like to hear her take on things. Perhaps she will write a book someday.

whilst I was in custody
kololi....you are not suggesting Kate McCann was in police custody are you?

In custody - being questioned - detained - helping Police with their enquiries - reporting a crime - take your pick but I still wouldn't want the police station employee puffing smoke up my nose whilst he/she took details - asked questions - filled in forms - whatever task they might be needing to do at the time.

Candyfloss, I have never been disrespectful to the Portuguese Police and choose to keep an open mind purely on the basis as you state it - I wasn't there and neither were you and nor was anybody else on this forum or any other forum. It's the one thing that we all have in common.

Meagain wrote:In custody - being questioned - detained - helping Police with their enquiries - reporting a crime - take your pick but I still wouldn't want the police station employee puffing smoke up my nose whilst he/she took details - asked questions - filled in forms - whatever task they might be needing to do at the time.

Candyfloss, I have never been disrespectful to the Portuguese Police and choose to keep an open mind purely on the basis as you state it - I wasn't there and neither were you and nor was anybody else on this forum or any other forum. It's the one thing that we all have in common.

Being questioned isn't the same as being in custody, that was the point Candyfloss made. 'Puffing smoke up my nose' is a huge exaggeration and we only have the word of a woman who has been proved to be economical with the truth on many occasions.
The whole story comes from one person who has an interest in showing the Portuguese police in a bad light.

I'd need concrete evidence before I believe anything Mrs. Kate McCann (or as she is now flying solo) Ms Healy might say. I have no doubt that the Portuguese officer would have extinguished his cigarette if she had asked him to do so.

I understand the point being made Tigger. I used the wrong word by mistake in my post that was questioned so just covered all eventualities.

I see it as similar to going to have your hair done at the hairdressers and the girl doing yours stops every few moments to puff on her ciggy or you get on a bus and as you pay your fare the driver lets out a perfect smoke ring. I wilould be pissed off enough, in both scenarios, to tell them to pack it in.

Even as a smoker, I do no think that within a workplace I have the right to subject non smoking colleagues or members of the public needing to access the organisation to my smoke. On that basis it could be Kate McCann, Tony Bennett, yourself or the devil himself moaning about this issue as she did and I would think - fair comment.

K.