Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear!

Let's just run through a few points.

1. The McCanns' chief public relations spinner, Clarence Mitchell, when he left working for the McCanns full-time, got a job working for Matthew Freud, owner and boss of Freud Communications.

2. Matthew Freud is married to Elizabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's daughter.

3. Rupert Murdoch is arguably the most powerful media mogul in the world. In Britain, he owns SKY, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World. He owns vast other media interests world-wide.

4. Clarence Mitchell once worked as the Director of Labour's media spin machine, the Media Monitoring Unit. He once boasted that the job of him and his 40-strong team was, and I quote: 'To control what comes out in the media'.

5. In the summer of 2009, David cameron had a long meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Barely a week later, The Sun announced that it was switching its support from Labour to the Tories. It was widely rumoured that the deal was this: Murdoch: "I'll win you the General Election if you let me control BSkyB". Cameron: "Done".

6. During the General Election this year, Clarence Mitchell was appointed a 2nd-in-command to Andy Coulson, the Tories' Communcations Director. Coulson's previous job was Editor of the News of the World.

7. Murdoch now has 39% control of BSkyB. He needs British government permission to buy a further 61% stake to take his stake up to 100% if possible. This will cost him £7.8 billion, but will make him a still more powerful media player than he is already. IF he gets permission.

8. Up to today, that decision - whether to give Murdoch permission - was to have been made by Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary.

9. But Cable said a few indiscreet things e.g. about David Cameron to two 'Telegraph' journalists pretending to be LibDems. Perhaps more relevantly, he told these two pretend LibDems that 'Murdoch has too much powser already' (or words to that effect).

10. Cameron has punished him by removing Cable's responsibility for approving media mergers to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Minister there is Jeremy Hunt.

11. If you go to Jeremy Hunt's blog, he proudly says this about Rupert Murdoch:

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day. We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."

No prizes for guessing which way Hunt's decision will go.

Murdoch could become even more powerful and dangerous than he is already.

Does he also own Tesco? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tony

Have you seen this?

ufercoffy wrote:Does he also own Tesco? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ufercoffy, Is that because you are approached by someone promoting Sky everytime you go into Tesco?

Here`s a tip

When approached make it clear that you would never want Sky

When ask why, just say "Murdoch"

That`s usually the end of the conversation. I have been called back a few times because the sales people cannot understand why so many refuse to deal with them for exactly the same reason.

Murdoch being discussed on the Jeremy Vine show right now if anyone fancies phoning in and raising issues about Hunt's impartiality. 0500 288 291.

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

Was down at the doctor's this afternoon and had a few minutes to kill before my appointment.

There's a bookstall there where patients bring in books, and other patients can buy them for 50p. - the funds raised go towards 'extras' for the practice.

I ran my eyes as usual over the shelves stuffed full of Danielle Steel and Catherine Cookson stuff, but this time I noticed a volume titled 'Inside Story', by Greg Dyke, who famously was appointed to run the BBC in 1999, but four years to the day later was forced to resign when Blair's 'New Labour' screamed for his resignation after BBC journo Andrew Gilligan virtually accused Blair of lying about weapons of mass destruction.

I flicked to the index and saw an entry there: 'Rupert Murdoch - threat to democracy: pp 180-3'. I had just 3 minutes before I was summoned for my consultation, in which time I read the following:

* How back in 2004 Greg Dyke had highlighted the threat to democracy posed by Rupert Murdoch's acquisitions

* How even then Murdoch effectively controlled about 40% of the British media

* How at the time of the Iraq war, Murdoch owned 175 newspapers across the globe. Out of those 175 newspapers, 175 supported the Iraq war, as Murdoch did, and not one editor dared oppose him

* How in 1995 he had had a long chat with upcoming Labour opposition spokesman, Tony Blair, and warned him that Labour, if it came to power, needed to regulate the media industry - as the way things were going, 'Murdoch could end up so powerful he could even determine who was going to be the next party to run Britain'.

So what happened next?

Blair was made Labour leader.

Within a few months, he had a long chat with Murdoch.

Murdoch's papers, soon after that meeting, began to back Labour.

Labour won the election in 1997, with the Sun boasting: 'It was the Sun wot won it'.

Wind the clock forward to August 2008. Now it's David Cameron's turn to have a long chat with Murdoch. I have an idea it was on a Greek island, but I'm not sure.

The upshot? No more than two weks later, all the Murdoch papers began to back the Conservatives. And the Conservatives won the election (well, sort of), less than a year later.

We are run by Murdoch!

Sign the emergency petition to demand an impartial investigation by the Competition Commission into Murdoch's BSkyB power grab.

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

Tony Bennett wrote:Labour won the election in 1997, with the Sun boasting: 'It was the Sun wot won it'.

I think that was 5 years earlier when the Tories won unexpectedly. 1997 was a landslide.

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

The latest - the view today from the BBC's Business Editor, Robert Peston - see highlighted paragraphs:

Ofcom says NewsCorp's Sky bid should go to Competition Commission

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 11:15 UK time, Thursday, 13 January 2011

I am as sure as I can be that Ofcom has made an unambiguous recommendation that NewsCorp's plan to acquire all of British Sky Broadcasting should be referred to the Competition Commission for further investigation.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


I have come to this view having had a number of conversations with sources close to the media regulator, to News Corporation and to the Department of Culture Media and Sport, which received Ofcom's report on the proposed £7.5bn deal on the last day of 2010.

What I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, has not simply published the report and announced that there will be a further Competition Commission enquiry into whether the takeover restricts plurality in the media (or choice for viewers and readers).

Instead, he is having talks with BSkyB and with News Corporation (which already owns 39% of Sky and various British newspapers, including the Sun and Times), as the Guardian disclosed a few days ago.

What is there for Mr Hunt to talk to NewsCorp and Sky about, if - as I say - Ofcom's advice is clear and unambiguous?

Although under the law, Mr Hunt has discretion whether or not to make the reference to the Competition Commission, his colleagues told me some time ago that he would not exercise this discretion, if the advice from Ofcom was categoric - which it is.

So some might say that it is a bit odd that he is talking to Sky and News.

Is Mr Hunt doing so to ward off any possible legal challenge from NewsCorp to a decision to order a further enquiry?

That's possible, though it is difficult to see how there could be such an appeal from NewsCorp, if Ofcom has done its job properly.

Is Mr Hunt seeing whether some kind of deal can be cut that would meet Ofcom's concerns and allow the takeover to go through without the need for a reference to Competition Commission?

If that were the case, Mr Hunt would lay himself open to the charge of being too kind to NewsCorp - which presumably he would not wish to do.

After all, Vince Cable was stripped of his responsibility to adjudicate on the takeover by the prime minister after [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Or to put it another way, the perception of bias either for or against NewsCorp taints the judicial impartiality that the relevant secretary of state is supposed to show.

Which is why I presume that Mr Hunt will ultimately do what Ofcom recommends and will refer the proposed takeover to the Competition Commission.

Update 12:59: I slightly regret the way I wrote this post, because some of you seem to think this is speculation.

It isn’t speculation.

What I am saying is very simple: Ofcom has recommended that there should be a full Competition Commission enquiry into News Corporation’s plan to buy all of British Sky Broadcasting.

That is a fact.

This story is developing very rapidly.

Here's an urgent announcement on it from the 38-degrees team, who are trying to stop Rupert Murdoch gaining even more power than he has already over the world's media.

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

It's just been revealed by the BBC that Ofcom think there are big problems with Murdoch's BSkyB power grab. [1] Their report to Jeremy Hunt says the Competition Commission needs to be involved.

But Jeremy Hunt is sitting on the report and refusing to make it public. Instead, he's been locked in secret meetings with Murdoch's representatives. [2] It looks like he could be trying to cook up a way of giving the Murdoch power grab the green light.

Things could move very quickly - if Jeremy Hunt thinks he can get away with this, he could give Rupert Murdoch the go-ahead in the next couple of days. We need to move fast to create a political storm about this dodgy behaviour, and speak up in favour of the independent inquiry which Ofcom says is necessary.

The more attention we get for the issue from MPs and the media, the less room Jeremy Hunt has to stitch anything up. We need to flood our MPs with messages today telling them to speak out against the secrecy. Jeremy Hunt needs to be hearing from MPs in all parties saying he has to follow Ofcom's recommendation.

Please click here to send an urgent e-mail to your MP. Demand an end to the secret meetings and for Jeremy Hunt to do what Ofcom has said he should do:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The BBC's Robert Peston sums up the suspicious behaviour of Jeremy Hunt: "What I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, has not simply published the report and announced that there will be a further Competition Commission enquiry". [1] Why is he only showing the report to Murdoch's lobbying team? There's a real risk he's working with them to find a way round the Ofcom report.

If thousands of us e-mail our MPs today, Jeremy Hunt will realise that the public won't stand for a new conspiracy with Rupert Murdoch. MPs will start contacting Jeremy Hunt directly telling him their voters are up in arms!

Together we've proved that it is possible for people to stand up to Rupert Murdoch and win. When we first started our campaign to challenge Murdoch's BSkyB power grab, even some 38 Degrees members thought we had bitten off more than we could chew. But now we've discovered that our pressure has persuaded Ofcom to make the right recommendation. People power is working - let's work together today to stop Jeremy Hunt trying to dodge us.

Please take two minutes to send an e-mail to your MP and ask them to speak out:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for being involved,

Hannah, David, Johnny and the 38 Degrees team


Reminder for new guests visiting this forum:

When former government spin-master and Director of the Media Monitoring Unit, based in the Cabinet Office, Clarence Mitchell, ceased to work for the McCanns, he immediately landed a public relations job in Freud Communications, a company onwed and run by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law Matthew Freud.

Mitchell was also drafted in to David Cameron's election team, being appointed No. 2 to former News of the World (Murdoch title) editor Andy Coulson, Director of the Tories' Communications Unit. That was just six months or so after Murdoch secretly met Cameron on Murdoch's yacht. Two weeks after that meeting, The Sun (Murdich title) changed political sides after 12 years of backing Labour - switching to support the Tories.

Now Rupert Murdoch does a deal with the Queen:

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

Will it be the Pope's message from the Vatican next [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Cherry wrote:Will it be the Pope's message from the Vatican next?

I thought Clarence Mitchell (The-Lansdown-Liar) had already arranged that?

Clarrie arranged the visit to the Pope where he went and barged some poor person out the way in order to shake the Pope's hand, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] not sure who broadcasts the yearly message that the Pope does from the Vatican, if not Sky I am sure it will soon be. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here's a balanced look (9 minutes) at the Rupert Murdoch issue...

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

...starring Jon Gaunt robustly defending Rupert Murdoch!

The journalist introduces Gaunt as 'someone who takes the Murdoch shilling'.

Wasn't Jon Gaunt the person who lambasted the McCanns for leaving Madeleine alone?

Yes he was, had a runin with Lorraine Kelly I seem to remember.
I am very surprised at Jon Gaunt re Murdoch.

David Cameron faces Labour questions over dinner with James Murdoch



Ivan Lewis asks PM to explain whether he broke ministerial code as News Corp awaits decision on BSkyB bid

• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], chief political correspondent
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Monday 24 January 2011 22.00 GMT
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] David Cameron met James Murdoch at the home of Rebekah Brooks. Photograph: Andrew Winning/AFP/Getty Images

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] faced renewed pressure tonight over his close links to News Corp when [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] challenged him to explain whether he broke the ministerial code by having dinner over Christmas with James Murdoch, days after stripping Vince Cable of his media takeover powers.
As Downing Street moved to distance itself from News Corp, saying the prime minister had no plans to meet Rupert Murdoch at the World Economic Forum in Davos later this week, Labour warned of "serious questions" about Cameron's judgment.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the shadow culture secretary, posed a series of questions to the prime minister in a letter after [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] today that James Murdoch met Cameron for dinner over Christmas at the Oxfordshire home of the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Cameron had been a guest of Brooks over the Christmas period.

The dinner with James Murdoch, the Europe and Asia chairman of News Corp, took place days after Cameron stripped Vince Cable of his powers over media takeovers and handed them to Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary. Hunt is to decide within the next few weeks whether to refer to the Competition Commission News Corp's bid to buy the 61% of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] it does not own.

Downing Street, which was shaken on Friday by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], insisted Hunt would decide "alone" in his quasi-judicial role on whether to accept an expected recommendation from Ofcom to refer the bid.
But Labour challenged Cameron to explain whether he had discussed the matter during the dinner and whether he had breached the ministerial code. In his letter Lewis asked the prime minister whether he:
• Had discussed News Corp's bid for BSkyB with James Murdoch.
• Could confirm the date of the dinner and whether he had informed Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, of the invitation in advance.
• Could confirm whether his attendance at a dinner during "a quasi-judicial process, being conducted by one of your ministers, is consistent with the ministerial code".
• He could say whether any of his officials had had or planned to have any discussions with Hunt about the BSkyB bid since 31 December.
• Could confirm whether he would be meeting Rupert Murdoch before Hunt makes his decision.
Lewis said: "Throughout this process Labour has demanded maximum transparency and impartiality. When Vince Cable boasted he had declared war on Rupert Murdoch we called for him to be sacked. That is why David Cameron's decision to attend this dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises serious questions about his judgment. I am writing to the prime minister today asking him to give straight answers to five key questions. The integrity of our media is central to our democracy. That is why his answers are of significant public interest."
The ministerial code calls for transparency and for ministers not to accept hospitality where it might appear to place a minister under an obligation. The code states: "It is a well-established and recognised rule that no minister should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation. The same principle applies if gifts etc are offered to a member of their family."
Downing Street sources dismissed criticisms of the dinner. They said the prime minister always disclosed formal meetings in Chequers and the official areas of No 10. But the prime minister believed it was not necessary to comment on private social engagements during a holiday period.
The prime minister's spokesman said: "Clearly, the prime minister does meet with people from the media from time to time. That is not at all unusual for prime ministers."
Downing Street said Hunt would abide by the law, which says he has to decide on his own in a quasi-judicial capacity, whether to refer the BSkyB bid. It is understood that Ofcom has recommended that the bid should be referred.
The No 10 spokesman said: "On the bid process ... the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is considering the report and he makes the decision in a quasi-judicial role. It is his decision alone."

Downing Street faced pressure on another front after Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat climate change secretary, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] yesterday of failing to investigate phone-hacking allegations properly. Coulson resigned as the Downing Street director of communications on Friday after he said the renewed allegations about phone hacking during his time as editor of the News of the World were making his job in No 10 impossible.
Coulson resigned as News of the World editor in 2007 after the jailing of the paper's former royal editor and a private investigator over illegal phone hacking. Coulson has always denied knowledge of wrongdoing and blamed a "rogue reporter".
Huhne cast doubt on that defence and accused the Met of reacting to his calls for a full inquiry last year by "scurrying back to Scotland Yard" and dismissing the idea in an afternoon. "We know the police were not keen on the subject, because when I called for a very clear review of this, the police scurried back into Scotland Yard, spent less than a day reviewing it, and popped out in time for the six o'clock news to say they had discovered no further evidence," he told BBC1's The Politics Show.
The prime minister's spokesman said today: "The position at the present time is that the Crown Prosecution Service are carrying out an assessment of the information that is held by the Metropolitan police. That process is under way and it is up to the CPS to make a decision on their assessment. The prime minister's position is that if there are allegations of illegal behaviour, then those allegations need to be taken very seriously, but in all cases it is a matter for the police and the CPS."
The spokesman said any complaints about the Met's handling of allegations should be made to the force's commissioner and to the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Another good news day for Rupert Murdoch - profits at BSkyB up threefold in a year!

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

On the subject of Murdoch you might want to look at Prince Alwaleed who, to put it mildly, has his Middle Eastern finger in a huge amount of pies.

He's the second largest stakeholder in Murdoch's empire and it's been said, after Alwaleed bailed Murdoch out a while back, that it is Alwaleed who pulls Murdoch's strings and the real controlling interest in that company.

There's a lot to be found on Alwaleed. Rumour has it he's just the front man for a multi billion empire which was founded with Arab extremists money.

He's an interesting subject anyway and here's a few links for anyone who wants to look

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

michief

I would like to thank you for adding this valuable information, which was completely unknown to me before - and also thank you for your substantial contributions and researches on the Yeates threads

You're welcome Tony, and thanks.

This site below is a very useful relationship mapping tool to have a play around with.

Type in a name ie Rupert Murdoch, and it creates a spiders web map of who's connected to who and how.

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

That's a useful site mischief, thanks for letting us know about that one. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi, I arrived here via a person named Jasmine at another forum. Thanks for the invite.

I used to post on Madeleine forums but not so much these days as there appears to be so little in the media at the moment.

I would like to see the perps of M's disappearance to be caught once and for all, along with the next person, but I really fail to see how this thread (which is on the MM string) and its personalities are going to lead the way to a conviction of any wrong doer in this case. This forum wants to find justice, does that mean going to Portugal and starting from X marks the place and working outwards, or will delving into these personalities and companies bring any luck. One company in particular would be the Pharmaceutical one. How would the workings and finances of this company be relevant in the disappearance of M? Several other companies are mentioned in the M threads and I fail to see the relevance. All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.
There are also other threads (the research) without discussion, copying and pasting what is already in the Portuguese files, but I cannot see the point the OP is making. Yes, I see the timelines, the residents, but what does it all mean? Why are residents other than the McCanns and the tapas friends of any use? Is it because once you have a name, somebody can track them down to ask for their account on the disappearance of M. There is such a lot of information but what is a poster supposed to do with it. Not discounting anything because everything can be tracked down, but who has the means to do that on a forum?

kimberley wrote:Hi, I arrived here via a person named Jasmine at another forum. Thanks for the invite.

I used to post on Madeleine forums but not so much these days as there appears to be so little in the media at the moment.

I would like to see the perps of M's disappearance to be caught once and for all, along with the next person, but I really fail to see how this thread (which is on the MM string) and its personalities are going to lead the way to a conviction of any wrong doer in this case. This forum wants to find justice, does that mean going to Portugal and starting from X marks the place and working outwards, or will delving into these personalities and companies bring any luck. One company in particular would be the Pharmaceutical one. How would the workings and finances of this company be relevant in the disappearance of M? Several other companies are mentioned in the M threads and I fail to see the relevance. All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.
There are also other threads (the research) without discussion, copying and pasting what is already in the Portuguese files, but I cannot see the point the OP is making. Yes, I see the timelines, the residents, but what does it all mean? Why are residents other than the McCanns and the tapas friends of any use? Is it because once you have a name, somebody can track them down to ask for their account on the disappearance of M. There is such a lot of information but what is a poster supposed to do with it. Not discounting anything because everything can be tracked down, but who has the means to do that on a forum?

I'd be interested to know what you think happened to Madeleine kimberley ?

Hi, YNG - I think she died in May 2007. I said so at the time, after the Golden 24 hours passed by. After 48 hours it was a certainty. But I am open-minded, if she does turn up alive, I would not be completely surprised.

kimberley wrote:Hi, I arrived here via a person named Jasmine at another forum. Thanks for the invite.

I used to post on Madeleine forums but not so much these days as there appears to be so little in the media at the moment.

I would like to see the perps of M's disappearance to be caught once and for all, along with the next person, but I really fail to see how this thread (which is on the MM string) and its personalities are going to lead the way to a conviction of any wrong doer in this case. This forum wants to find justice, does that mean going to Portugal and starting from X marks the place and working outwards, or will delving into these personalities and companies bring any luck. One company in particular would be the Pharmaceutical one. How would the workings and finances of this company be relevant in the disappearance of M? Several other companies are mentioned in the M threads and I fail to see the relevance. All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.
There are also other threads (the research) without discussion, copying and pasting what is already in the Portuguese files, but I cannot see the point the OP is making. Yes, I see the timelines, the residents, but what does it all mean? Why are residents other than the McCanns and the tapas friends of any use? Is it because once you have a name, somebody can track them down to ask for their account on the disappearance of M. There is such a lot of information but what is a poster supposed to do with it. Not discounting anything because everything can be tracked down, but who has the means to do that on a forum?

kimberley.

There is a mass of information in the media at the moment! Surely you must have read the latest outpouring of bilge in The Algarve Resident? Surely you have heard about Gamble being invited into a Meyer grouping? Not that we have time for current news here though, because we have still not fully interpreted the very first McCann mutterings from May 2007. Surely you have not worked out what the McCanns meant when they said that the shutters had been smashed, and that Madeleine had been taken through the very tiny aperture at the bottom of the shutter? If you have worked this one out, you are not only a better man than I, but far better than all the sleuthing sleuthers we have yet come across.

When you say this, ''All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.'' Please do not be fooled into thinking that investigating companies and their employees is ever without its compensations. You would be staggered if you could see what has been revealed. Especially around those people whose names would never have even come to light in a milion years, without the McCanns had declared that Madeleine had been abducted.

And with regard to your question about ''who would have the means to do that on a forum?'' Please allow one to say that people from all walks of life have found their way to this forum and its posters. Simply because they wish to see justice in Madeleine's case. Others because they have skills and information that will benefit us. Some people, seldom if ever post, but always keep us informed of their own progress and the information they have uncovered. There are some people here who do not care how they are personally perceived, so long as justice is seen to be done for a three years old child

Where would you like to go with this next, kimberley? What do you think really happened to Madeleine McCann? And please be careful how you answer, because people are watching very closely for libel. Nor would one like to be seen discussing one of those strange abduction theories on the board. Not unless you make it very amusing for us all to read. We have never heard of Madeleine being stolen by passing elephants as far as one can remember. So this is an area well worth exploring, just so that we can rule it out.

kimberley wrote:Hi, YNG - I think she died in May 2007. I said so at the time, after the Golden 24 hours passed by. After 48 hours it was a certainty. But I am open-minded, if she does turn up alive, I would not be completely surprised.

Eddie and Keela would be more than surprised though And Grime would probably think about getting himself a new job.

What makes you think she died, kimberley? Which evidence would you provide? Eddie and Keela's evidence? When you say died, do you mean that she died because there was something medically wrong with her? Because if she was stolen by a paedophile, the chances are that she may very well have been killled quite soon after she was allegedly abducted. But she would not have died, kimberley. She would have been killed.

Dying is a natural process. Being killed is not. So how do you think she died, kimberley?

Greetings, Judgemental, it is good to hear your point of view, but I think I have muddied the waters slightly as to my opinion. I do not really have an opinion that matters because I was not present in Portugal in May 2007. We only have the Police files to work with. Stories which appeared in the newspapers in 2007/8 cannot be relied upon - there is a financial motive, an M. story no matter what would have sold countless newspapers - M had six fingers and six toes would have worked as well as any other story as regards the newspapers. Word of mouth passed from person to person as in Chinese Whispers seemed to play a big part but they do not appear in the files.

I paid tribute to the researchers on this forum as they have been able to unearth much much more than appears in the files, which makes for sometimes confusing reading. Again, what can we do with such information? What ,if anything ,would be gained from further research into, say, Astra Zeneca as regards convicting the perp in the disappearance of M?

I was not present in Portugal in 07. One theory could be that M herself climbed on the bed and managed to get out of the window herself. The drop from her window was about 3 feet or so. The parents may have thought this to be impossible for a 3yr old, but there is always a first time for everything. The parents may have thought M would never go out without her shoes, but again there is always a first time for everything. But M. being smart, would not need to clamber out of the window - the sliding door was unlocked. The parents may argue that even if she had used the sliding door, it would not occur to her to shut it after her. There's always a first time.