Re: The Times - Delay

by plebgate on 12.07.13 21:55

Hi Chatelaine, you may have that view, but I have mine. I think I recall that you say you do not live in Britain, so you are not a taxpayer here presumably?

As to the cost of the hotels, we do not know what standard hotel the police stayed in, so your point is not really relevant at the mo. imo.

I do not feel the cost of this review/investigation is peanuts as a taxpayer and we certainly have not been told what the FINAL cost will be.

by Guest on 12.07.13 22:46

@plebgate wrote:Hi Chatelaine, you may have that view, but I have mine. I think I recall that you say you do not live in Britain, so you are not a taxpayer here presumably?

As to the cost of the hotels, we do not know what standard hotel the police stayed in, so your point is not really relevant at the mo. imo.

I do not feel the cost of this review/investigation is peanuts as a taxpayer and we certainly have not been told what the FINAL cost will be.

***
No, I'm not a UK taxpayer indeed, Plebgate [though I do pay a lot in France and it's spent in a way that surely doesn't serve me ...]. But you may remember that I calculated that all of the SY review has so far cost 12 pence per head there. That's why I keep coming back to the relativety of costs, every time they're mentioned. The debate sooner is: is it worthwhile? Worthwhile to solve this case? Is this case going to be solved? And then I must say: Yes, I do have faith in the investigation. And I do think it is worthwhile to spent the money. And, yes, I also think that the same effort and expenditure should go into every single case, where there's a child missing [or a husband or spouse]. Especially, when there's serious doubt as to what happened. And, you know, I've so far never seen a single mention of the costs of such inquiry. Only the number of people involved and the time they spent on the investigation. Never the costs ...

by tigger on 13.07.13 6:58

How costs are calculated for e.g. the cost of sending soldiers over to Iraq or Afghanistan or even Northern Ireland is a mystery.

The figures always run to many millions yet the soldiers have to be paid anyway, do they get a lot extra for being on 'active'? Same with police, even if all the police working on operation Grange should be retired otherwise, they would get their pensions instead of their salary, not a saving of many millions for less than 40 people I'd think. Otherwise there are rules I understand and limits to spending when on trips.

I still think it's a waste of money - why first a review during which the active search for a girl who might be locked up in a cellar by a paedophile is suspended? (Doesn't worry me as I don't believe that's the case, but it's the 'likelyhood' put forward by the parents.)
The McCanns weren't doing anything other than running their website whilst the review was going on, so as not to interfere with the review. How can you interfere with a review? Break into Scotland Yard and steal their documents? There was no earthly reason to stop searching but even sightings only got lukewarm responses from TM.

To keep the public happy, a token search for Ben Needham, headlined for two days, to show equal dedication for 'others' produced nothing.

Now SY goes on 'active' and tell us they're working closely with the Portuguese for whom this is as much a surprise as it is for us.

Most of all, a Ltd. Co. which calls itself a Fund, which does not provide transparent accounts as pledged and is boldly asking us to press donate buttons of up to £ 100,00 on their infrequently updated website surely has enough money left to buy a stamp? Because a letter from the Drs. McCann to the Attorney General in Portugal is sufficient to re-open the investigation and I have no doubt that the PJ will work together with SY to solve the case. Which need not cost the British tax payer a penny.

by Guest on 13.07.13 8:26

Thanks for posting kitchen.

Snipped from Times:

The original Portuguese police inquiry was inconclusive and was shelved in 2008. It cannot be re-opened unless there is significant new evidence that reaches a threshold set down by Portuguese law

Anyone know what the threshold is, or is it just that they need new evidence?

by aiyoyo on 13.07.13 8:41

Cherry Blossom wrote:Thanks for posting kitchen.

Snipped from Times:

The original Portuguese police inquiry was inconclusive and was shelved in 2008. It cannot be re-opened unless there is significant new evidence that reaches a threshold set down by Portuguese law

Anyone know what the threshold is, or is it just that they need new evidence?

This case in specific, I guess it would have to be either a body or a confession that will meet the threshold.

by Praiaaa on 13.07.13 9:34

Or maybe KM answering the questions she previously refused, or them agreeing to a reconstruction?

by aiyoyo on 13.07.13 9:44

tigger wrote:
I still think it's a waste of money - why first a review during which the active search for a girl who might be locked up in a cellar by a paedophile is suspended? (Doesn't worry me as I don't believe that's the case, but it's the 'likelyhood' put forward by the parents.)
The McCanns weren't doing anything other than running their website whilst the review was going on, so as not to interfere with the review. How can you interfere with a review? Break into Scotland Yard and steal their documents? There was no earthly reason to stop searching but even sightings only got lukewarm responses from TM.

Quite right! How can a search possibly interfere with papers Review? Proof that the search is anything but per se.

Whether the review is worth the money or waste of money would depend on the ultimate outcome.

The Mccanns said they wont give up hope and have faith in SY; and so do we!

We are also given "fresh" hope, and have faith in the Yard doing their duty for Madeleine.

by Guest on 13.07.13 9:58

@aiyoyo wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Thanks for posting kitchen.

Snipped from Times:

The original Portuguese police inquiry was inconclusive and was shelved in 2008. It cannot be re-opened unless there is significant new evidence that reaches a threshold set down by Portuguese law

Anyone know what the threshold is, or is it just that they need new evidence?

This case in specific, I guess it would have to be either a body or a confession that will meet the threshold.

No body - case not opened

No confession - case not opened

SY will know this surely?

by plebgate on 13.07.13 10:39

Hi Chatelaine,

I understand what you are saying, but I do feel that the taxpayers should be entitled to know exactly how the money is being spent.

16 visits in 2 years seems a lot to me, especially with all the technology available. Once they had met the Portugese officers once or twice I just can't see why video conferencing was not used.

We do not know how many police went on these trips etc. etc. and as (I think PeterM) "asked", were golf clubs included in the luggage?

having spent 2 years and very considerable sums of money and then to read that a millionaire couple (the police have known about for 2 years) is on The List, it does make me wonder what is going on.

I have not said that I do not think that SY should investigage but just to be spending vast sums of public money without having to let the public know how it is being spent is, imo, ridiculous and how many more trips with who knows how many officers around several different countries will be made, when state of the art technology is available, after initial contacts are made. IMO. smilie

Plus the fund still up and running (as Tigger states) with donate buttons of up to £100 is also ridiculous imo. That money should go into the public coffers to help other families with missing children, as how is there any need for Mr. & Mrs. to have to search for Maddie now.

by Montclair on 13.07.13 10:42

The case was shelved due to political pressure and to please the McCanns by lifting their arguido status. If the Portuguese authorities really believed that Maddie had been abducted and they could find her, the case would still be open. The problem was not that the evidence was inconclusive, it was that the investigation was not allowed to continue its course and to look into other significant leads, such as the Smith sighting or Kate and Gerry being seen going into a block of apartments, etc. This was an investigation stopped dead in its tracks because it was obvious that, no matter what, it would always lead back to the parents.

by **PeterMac** on 13.07.13 11:11

@Montclair wrote:This was an investigation stopped dead in its tracks because it was obvious that, no matter what, it would always lead back to the parents.

Cue for an English nursery song

There’s a hole in my version, dear Katey, dear Katey
There’s a hole in my version, dear Katey, a hole

With what shall we mend it, dear Gerry, dear Gerry
With what shall we mend it, dear Gerry, mend it

With a sighting of Maddie, dear Katey, dear Katey.
With a sighting of Maddie, dear Katey, Mad-die

And who shall be Sighter, dear Gerry, dear Gerry
And who shall be Sighter, dear Gerry, Sighter

We’ll tell Janie to say it, dear Katey, dear Katey
We’ll tell Janie to say it, dear Katey, Say it

And what will she see-ee, dear Gerry, dear Gerry
And what will she see-ee, dear Gerry, see what

A bundleman with Maddie, dear Katey, dear Katey
A bundleman with Maddie, dear Kate, bundle man

And where will she see him, dear Gerry. dear Gerry
And where will she see him, dear Gerry, see him.

In the road by the villa, dear Katey, dear Katey
In the road by the villa, dear Katey, in the road

But you’re in the road, dear Gerry, dear Gerry
But you’re in the road, dear Gerry, IN THE ROAD

There’s a hole in my version, dear Katey, dear Katey,
There’s a hole in my version, dear Katey, a Hole

by aiyoyo on 13.07.13 11:46

Cherry Blossom wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Thanks for posting kitchen.

Snipped from Times:

The original Portuguese police inquiry was inconclusive and was shelved in 2008. It cannot be re-opened unless there is significant new evidence that reaches a threshold set down by Portuguese law

Anyone know what the threshold is, or is it just that they need new evidence?

This case in specific, I guess it would have to be either a body or a confession that will meet the threshold.

No body - case not opened

No confession - case not opened

SY will know this surely?

SY did not shelve the case thus operate from different threshold.

by aiyoyo on 13.07.13 11:47

@Praiaaa wrote:Or maybe KM answering the questions she previously refused, or them agreeing to a reconstruction?

Zero chance - hell will freeze over before that happens.

by **PeterMac** on 13.07.13 11:54

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Praiaaa wrote:Or maybe KM answering the questions she previously refused, or them agreeing to a reconstruction?
Zero chance - hell will freeze over before that happens.

Their lawyers would not permit them.
What is interesting is that if Kate had answered the questions we would be little further on.
The fact that she refused to answer questions which on any test could not incriminate her is thing that makes everyone suspicious.

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

Why did she refuse, but then tell the world in the book what she had done ?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?

It's all in the book, so why not tell the police, who are trying to find your child.
Unless, of course you don't want it to be found . .

by aiyoyo on 13.07.13 14:11

Because bewk is retro-fitted.

She couldn't have answered back then without incriminating herself....but post shelving everything she said in retrospect is different ball game.

Actually, what she said in the bewk muddier the water (if that is possible) because her initial statements vs her bewk the contrasts become glaring.

by lj on 14.07.13 15:42

Châtelaine wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Hi Chatelaine, you may have that view, but I have mine. I think I recall that you say you do not live in Britain, so you are not a taxpayer here presumably?

As to the cost of the hotels, we do not know what standard hotel the police stayed in, so your point is not really relevant at the mo. imo.

I do not feel the cost of this review/investigation is peanuts as a taxpayer and we certainly have not been told what the FINAL cost will be.

***
No, I'm not a UK taxpayer indeed, Plebgate [though I do pay a lot in France and it's spent in a way that surely doesn't serve me ...]. But you may remember that I calculated that all of the SY review has so far cost 12 pence per head there. That's why I keep coming back to the relativety of costs, every time they're mentioned. The debate sooner is: is it worthwhile? Worthwhile to solve this case? Is this case going to be solved? And then I must say: Yes, I do have faith in the investigation. And I do think it is worthwhile to spent the money. And, yes, I also think that the same effort and expenditure should go into every single case, where there's a child missing [or a husband or spouse]. Especially, when there's serious doubt as to what happened. And, you know, I've so far never seen a single mention of the costs of such inquiry. Only the number of people involved and the time they spent on the investigation. Never the costs ...

Sorry for reacting so late, I only saw this now (I just can spend only minutes at a time here).
I think it is not correct to calculate this per head and then say that's peanuts. It is a considerable wad of money. The government is bound to spend that in a responsible way. IIRC in the Dutch law it somewhere says a a "father" (it might have changed lately) uses the money in the most responsible way for his family. Now think of all the good things that could have been done with that money, maybe something that would benefit ALL missing children?.
I know you believe that this investigation will bring you answers, and that is the motivation to say: oh that money is not important. I think it's money down the drain, together with all kind of evidence they won't use because it does not fit their abduction therory.
BTW before and in the beginning of the operation money was a hot topic, even within government circles.

by Dr What on 14.07.13 16:22

It is absolutely in order to question the finances and to ensure that the expense is value for money.

In this respect, I am surprised that public monies which were donated to the Fund to assist in the 'search', have not already been donated to the SY investigation/review, or being demanded by the Govt..After all, it is not the McCann's own personal hard earned money. It was money given to them.What other use is it for?

Surely it was not for McCanns' personal use, for personal travel expenses, for hotel costs, for mortgage repayments.?

Surely it was ALL to be used for the search of a family member, wasn't it?

by Newintown on 14.07.13 16:34

@Dr What wrote:It is absolutely in order to question the finances and to ensure that the expense is value for money.

In this respect, I am surprised that public monies which were donated to the Fund to assist in the 'search', have not already been donated to the SY investigation/review, or being demanded by the Govt..After all, it is not the McCann's own personal hard earned money. It was money given to them.What other use is it for?

Surely it was not for McCanns' personal use, for personal travel expenses, for hotel costs, for mortgage repayments.?

Surely it was ALL to be used for the search of a family member, wasn't it?

Perhaps if the "Fund" is being investigated as a fraud and is found to be a fraud if the "abduction" is also found not to have been an "abduction" that all the monies will be seized by the MET, if there's anything left. I believe that a law was brought in a while ago that all monies acquired by crime can now be seized by the Police. I wonder if that includes money that has been transferred overseas, though.

by guest. on 14.07.13 17:57

@Newintown wrote:
@Dr What wrote:It is absolutely in order to question the finances and to ensure that the expense is value for money.

In this respect, I am surprised that public monies which were donated to the Fund to assist in the 'search', have not already been donated to the SY investigation/review, or being demanded by the Govt..After all, it is not the McCann's own personal hard earned money. It was money given to them.What other use is it for?

Surely it was not for McCanns' personal use, for personal travel expenses, for hotel costs, for mortgage repayments.?

Surely it was ALL to be used for the search of a family member, wasn't it?

Perhaps if the "Fund" is being investigated as a fraud and is found to be a fraud if the "abduction" is also found not to have been an "abduction" that all the monies will be seized by the MET, if there's anything left. I believe that a law was brought in a while ago that all monies acquired by crime can now be seized by the Police. I wonder if that includes money that has been transferred overseas, though.

If you have a Ltd company as long as you dont put any of your assets up as collateral you get to keep them if the firm goes bust

If you commit a criminal activity and gain financial benefit from it the police can take your assets

Not sure how they would sort the fraud and liability out, does anybody on here know?