The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

What binds them?

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Cristobell on 14.07.13 9:53

The dynamics of the group are interesting.  Imo, Gerry was the alpha male, and Fiona was the alpha female - which irked Kate. Jane had the least to lose career wise and may have volunteered her (unhelpful) 'evidence' to improve her status within the group. I doubt she realised at the time that Gerry would deny seeing her and would further bring her evidence into question, by stating that he spoke to Jez on the other side of the road.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Monty Heck on 14.07.13 10:47

Cristobell wrote:An interesting theory Whom, but I don't see any charisma whatsoever from Gerry or from Kate.  We have seen hundreds of interviews with them, and the most that can be said, is that they are a curiosity.  They lack charm, warmth, empathy and sensitivity, in fact they are devoid of any likeable human quality and the quizzical faces of those interviewing them, reflects this.  
I think any power they may have over their friends stems from fear.  As many of us who follow this case know the McCanns will pursue to the death anyone who crosses them, they are not the forgiving type.  In a couple of interviews Gerry has pointed out that leaving the children alone was a collective decision - if they go down, they are taking everyone with them.

Doubt very much that charisma plays any part in any hold the McCs have over the rest of the group.  You make a good point about GMcCs insistence on a collective decision and the implications of that for the group.  IMO the collective decision may have involved a bit more than just "let's all agree to leave the kids every night and go out".  With 2 trained anaesthetists in the group the possibility that there may have been something given to the children to ensure they wouldn't wake and get up to mischief really can't be discounted, and that is something which would mire them all in a heap of trouble, professionally as well as personally.  No individual could break ranks without risk to themselves.  Just purporting a theory.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Guest on 14.07.13 10:58

IMO whatever the twins were given on 3rd didn't come from over the counter in the local pharmacy.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by tigger on 14.07.13 11:00

You don't get the ambassador and the Control Risk Group as well as PR specialising in reputation repair turning up within 24 hours for that sort of thing imo.
You also don't label it a matter of 'national security' as Gordon Brown did.

As I cannot know what happened exactly I can only surmise that there was an agreement to make it appear they were all doing the same as the McCanns, namely leaving their children alone.
Now what would be the point of two couples taking baby monitors with them and why was there a different member of the group 'not well' one of the evenings so that they were unable to join the group at the Tapas?
The question is not 'what did they do to their children?' imo it's 'Why did they agree to be seen as neglectful parents?'

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Guest on 14.07.13 11:12

As far as is known, there were no reports of any of the other Tapas children being left alone and crying on earlier nights so for me it seems unlikely that they were. I did love Russell O'Brien's attempt to portray himself as a super dad though - cleaning up sick daughter, getting her back to sleep and back to the merry band all within 10 minutes.

So the question remains, why pretend that you left your children in danger of choking on their own vomit - not to mention at risk from all the paedos who were hanging around - when in fact you didn't?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Monty Heck on 14.07.13 11:34

tigger wrote:You don't get the ambassador and the Control Risk Group as well as PR specialising in reputation repair turning up within 24 hours for that sort of thing imo.
You also don't label it a matter of 'national security' as Gordon Brown did.

As I cannot know what happened exactly I can only surmise that there was an agreement to make it appear they were all doing the same as the McCanns, namely leaving their children alone.
Now what would be the point of two couples taking baby monitors with them and why was there a different member of the group 'not well' one of the evenings so that they were unable to join the group at the Tapas?
The question is not 'what did they do to their children?' imo it's 'Why did they agree to be seen as neglectful parents?'

The possibility of sedation of young children while holidaying abroad by a group of 6 medical professionals indirectly employed by the UK government, via the NHS, is perhaps exactly the type of situation where CRG and reputation repairing PR would be required, toute de suite.  If any suggestion of sedation had hit the newstands in those early days there might well have been carnage.  Therefore it's possible the involvement of CRG and reputation management stemmed more from  limiting damage to the NHS and, by extension the UK government than protecting the T9 per se, although that would of course be a very welcome by product.

The baby monitors and people "being unwell" questions I'm not able to answer but perhaps neither would preclude using sedation on some of the infants, some of the time by some members of the group?  Some may have been routinely sedated (and one couple in particular were very vocal about their "routine"), some only as a last resort when they failed to settle within the timetable.  Just a theory and of course others equally valid, if not more so roses

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Cristobell on 14.07.13 11:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:As far as is known, there were no reports of any of the other Tapas children being left alone and crying on earlier nights so for me it seems unlikely that they were. I did love Russell O'Brien's attempt to portray himself as a super dad though - cleaning up sick daughter, getting her back to sleep and back to the merry band all within 10 minutes.

So the question remains, why pretend that you left your children in danger of choking on their own vomit - not to mention at risk from all the paedos who were hanging around - when in fact you didn't?

Superdad indeed!  I appreciate you were being ironic, but each time I read about these doctors leaving babies with vomiting and diarrhoea on their own, it makes my blood boil!  Young children quickly dehydrate, never mind the risk of choking.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by guest. on 14.07.13 11:56

I was just thinking about the dinner time arrangements and that they all went to the Paynes every day except the McCanns

Did the McCanns have other people they were spending time with because I can't see GM missing out without a reason

The McCanns seemed to do their own thing a lot whereas the others seemed to do mostly do things as a group

guest.

Posts : 322
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-08-10

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by suzyjohnson on 14.07.13 11:59

lj wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
That's a strange thing, why, if JT didn't think too much of GM, was she prepared to be their star witness? Unless of course she was deliberately trying to distance herself from the McCanns? Why would we cover up for them, we barely knew them, sort of thing.

Maybe because of Kate? She might have felt sympathy towards Kate because of Gerry's behavior. On the other side I think, if ever this all comes out, the most important argument will be that "the poor twins, they already lost their sister, don't let them loose their parents too."

 Yes could be that lj

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by tigger on 14.07.13 12:00

Monty Heck wrote:
tigger wrote:You don't get the ambassador and the Control Risk Group as well as PR specialising in reputation repair turning up within 24 hours for that sort of thing imo.
You also don't label it a matter of 'national security' as Gordon Brown did.

As I cannot know what happened exactly I can only surmise that there was an agreement to make it appear they were all doing the same as the McCanns, namely leaving their children alone.
Now what would be the point of two couples taking baby monitors with them and why was there a different member of the group 'not well' one of the evenings so that they were unable to join the group at the Tapas?
The question is not 'what did they do to their children?' imo it's 'Why did they agree to be seen as neglectful parents?'

The possibility of sedation of young children while holidaying abroad by a group of 6 medical professionals indirectly employed by the UK government, via the NHS, is perhaps exactly the type of situation where CRG and reputation repairing PR would be required, toute de suite.  If any suggestion of sedation had hit the newstands in those early days there might well have been carnage.  Therefore it's possible the involvement of CRG and reputation management stemmed more from  limiting damage to the NHS and, by extension the UK government than protecting the T9 per se, although that would of course be a very welcome by product.

The baby monitors and people "being unwell" questions I'm not able to answer but perhaps neither would preclude using sedation on some of the infants, some of the time by some members of the group?  Some may have been routinely sedated (and one couple in particular were very vocal about their "routine"), some only as a last resort when they failed to settle within the timetable.  Just a theory and of course others equally valid, if not more so roses

My argument in this case is simply this: they clearly had powerful 'connections' who sprang into action immediately. So imo these same 'connections' could have easily  presented the whole thing as an unfortunate accident - child was flown home by private plain from 'well-wisher' could not be saved and died soon after arrival in hospital where everything was done to revive her. Subdued inquest with a rider to be careful in holiday flats with tiled floors. End of story but no money, no celebrity status.
Mitchell was on the job as from the 4th - too late to prevent an abduction, but had to make the best of it.
He was in charge of the Media Monitoring Unit, which, as he stated himself  'controls what appears in the press'.

Brushing the whole affair under the carpet would have been a doddle, but imo this was not at all the aim of TM, quite the opposite - hence the press being alerted ridiculously early.
Imo this is not a simple case because there have been different interests all along.
The government-run efforts to stop the leaks, fudge the mistakes and contradictions, elevate the McCanns to sainthood and therefore go with the abduction story to the bitter end.
The abduction 'organisers' who had world-wide publicity in mind from the start  imo, It worked for a few months. After that all bets were off.
But three successive governments have pandered to the McCanns  - why? (I don't believe it's paedophilia or swinging or drugs although all of that may have gone on, the strongest motive always is money and in this case I'd think it's a lot, for a lot of people.)

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by AndyB on 14.07.13 12:25

tigger wrote:But three successive governments have pandered to the McCanns  - why? (I don't believe it's paedophilia or swinging or drugs although all of that may have gone on, the strongest motive always is money and in this case I'd think it's a lot, for a lot of people.)
Money or power. I suspect that this is (or at least was) all being driven by News International and the ongoing cover-up is not to protect the McCann's. Instead its to prevent the degree to which News International has influence on the British government becoming known. Remember that at the start Kate was pushing the "abducted by a couple" story. That changed to being "abducted by a paedophile" sometime after the News of the World got involved. The whole paedo thing is right up Rebekah Brooks street given her obsession with the subject: She claims that Sarah's law was her greatest achievement. (I still wonder if the "worse to come" that Rebekah Brooks talked about at the death of the New of the World is something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann)

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by guest. on 14.07.13 12:50

AndyB wrote:
tigger wrote:But three successive governments have pandered to the McCanns  - why? (I don't believe it's paedophilia or swinging or drugs although all of that may have gone on, the strongest motive always is money and in this case I'd think it's a lot, for a lot of people.)
Money or power. I suspect that this is (or at least was) all being driven by News International and the ongoing cover-up is not to protect the McCann's. Instead its to prevent the degree to which News International has influence on the British government becoming known. Remember that at the start Kate was pushing the "abducted by a couple" story. That changed to being "abducted by a paedophile" sometime after the News of the World got involved. The whole paedo thing is right up Rebekah Brooks street given her obsession with the subject: She claims that Sarah's law was her greatest achievement. (I still wonder if the "worse to come" that Rebekah Brooks talked about at the death of the New of the World is something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann)

Andy B - I've always thought the worse to come in about a year from RB is something to do with the McCanns, just taking longer than a year

NI are somehow in it up to their necks regarding the McCann cover up IMO just not sure in what capacity

guest.

Posts : 322
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-08-10

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by roy rovers on 14.07.13 13:10

But if it happened on a 'rolling' basis much more makes sense. Everybody apart from the parents were rolled into it as time progressed then couldn't readily get out. First the T7 then the government etc etc.
avatar
roy rovers

Posts : 472
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2012-03-04

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by tigger on 14.07.13 13:35

roy rovers wrote:But if it happened on a 'rolling' basis much more makes sense. Everybody apart from the parents were rolled into it as time progressed then couldn't readily get out. First the T7 then the government etc etc.

That's exactly what I meant, but didn't put clearly. If a fatal accident did happen to Maddie, the said connections could easily have covered it up.
Therefore a cover-up was not wanted. Third parties were asked to back up the story, the 'connections' were functioning within hours but could not stop the juggernaut so the only option was to get on board and try to take over the steering wheel. Once on board, no way out.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Cristobell on 14.07.13 14:17

It may be that a lot of files are being shredded as we speak.  38 people are getting plenty of warning.  

But back to reality.  I agree with the out of control juggernaut analogy.  I don't think the McCanns, even in their wildest dreams, could have imagined that their media blitz would achieve the results it did.  

However, it is understandable, especially if we look at the characters involved.  They are all high achievers, including Clarence, each vying to be alpha male or alpha female.  The inner circle, that includes the wider family, are fiercely ambitious.  Within weeks (or was it days?) they had access to the most powerful people in the land. They even aimed for an audience at the White House, but had to make do with Dubya's Scottie dog - a mere trifle, they still had the corridors of Whitehall and the front page of every tabloid. They had dinner with the creepy (and now deceased) Ray Wyre, who used his title (I could think of a few titles for him, but am aware CR watching) to declare the McCanns innocent. They were blessed by the Pope. I think it is fair to say that each of their respective brains was going kerching!

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

we don't know

Post by marconi on 14.07.13 14:53

sally66 wrote:I was just thinking about the dinner time arrangements and that they all went to the Paynes every day except the McCanns

Did the McCanns have other people they were spending time with because I can't see GM missing out without a reason

The McCanns seemed to do their own thing a lot whereas the others seemed to do mostly do things as a group
we don't know if that is true.  they all lie!

marconi

Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by aiyoyo on 14.07.13 14:57

I like to think they did not knowingly cover for the couple.
That said, then there is no reason for their covert meeting in Rothley Hotel, in blatant breach of the Portugal Judiciary Secrecy Code.

What binds them must thus be a common fear. And, the thing most in the group had in common is their professional lives.
Being strike off from the Professional Body is an ultimate destruction.

avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by PeterMac on 14.07.13 16:18

aiyoyo wrote:
What binds them must thus be a common fear.  And, the thing most in the group had in common is their professional lives.
Being strike off from the Professional Body is an ultimate destruction.

Quite.
Reminder
The McCanns, and many of their Tapas7 friends are medically trained.  
Both Dr. Kate McCann and Dr. Fiona Payne are trained to a high standard in anaesthetics.  In fact both were Junior Registrars.  
Their continued insistence on sedation by an ‘intruder’ as a viable proposition, when combined with the unambiguous admission in their statements, in interviews, and in the book, of clearly defined professional negligence in their manifest failure to provide, or even consider, any form of resuscitation or aftercare, is baffling.  
But these qualified anaesthetists simply put a palm on a child’s back, or a finger under its nose, (according to Dr Fiona Payne).  There is no record of whether each child was turned, undressed and examined minutely for needle stick marks, or had its mouth, nose and throat cleared or checked for the presence of a chloroform soaked rag, had its breath smelled for evidence of drugs, gas or ketones, had its pupil response monitored, had its heart rate taken, had other reflexes tested, or was roused until fully conscious.  These would be standard procedures.

There is no record of proper and medically correct post-anaesthesia care.  None.  Nothing.

On the contrary, what evidence there is points to the twins’ having simply  been left for a considerable period unattended, and then some two hours later scooped up out of their travel cots, in the bedclothes in which they slept, and being carried, still sleeping, out into the cold night air and round to an adjacent apartment where they were again left to sleep.
Neither doctor performed any of the usual and medically required tests or procedures appropriate to recovery from anaesthesia.  It is a matter of record that the twins were not taken to a hospital for assessment.
On the facts therefore the doctors were in serious and negligent breach of a whole series of medical protocols for which people have been struck off the register.  
And even more strangely, they have admitted this in statements and in the book.  They have made no attempt to suggest that they acted correctly.

If we rely purely on what they have said, we find that it is corroborated by independent witnesses, and it leads to the following conclusion -
They would be guilty of a most serious breach of professional standards, so serious that striking off the Medical Register would be appropriate.
We are given many instances in her own book of Kate McCanns’ loss of control, kicking out at inanimate objects, hitting railings with her fists, throwing herself on the floor, wailing and so on.  We are however also given clear examples where she was not acting in this way, being more calm and professionally purposeful, going out into the street to see what was happening, having a blunt discussion with a witness in the apartment above, “wandering” into the twins’ room, and ultimately “keeping vigil” in total silence for the rest of the night.

However, it must be said
• For a normal distressed and anxious parent to behave in this way towards two apparently anaethetised children would be unforgivable.
• For an educated professional person it would be grossly negligent.
• For two qualified anaesthetists it is absolutely unthinkable.

If we find that it is indeed unthinkable, then we must wish to believe that their actions were not negligent, that they were not in breach of any protocols, and that their apparent lack of action does not bear any negative interpretation.
But for that to be true they would have to have known precisely why the twins were unconscious, what substance had been administered, in what dose, by whom, and when.
And they have always denied this.
But despite that, and to address the original question, having regard to the available evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities,
the parents may have been involved in the sedation of the twins.

PLEASE NOTE: I am fully aware that this logical progression may offend, and that lawyers may wish to say it is defamatory.
If so, I not only apologise unreservedly and withdraw it, but on receipt of any compaint of defamation will immediately refer the matter to the GMC, with a view to the striking off the Medical Register of
Dr Fiona Payne and Dr Kate Healy / McCann.

The GMC is the proper authority in matters of this nature.
This is not a matter for legal argument.
It is a question of professional competence.


One possibility ?

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 171
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by Lance De Boils on 14.07.13 16:49

Just think how Kate must feel. All those years at med school. All that training. All those exams. A budding career in medicine. And now look at her - for the last 6 years she's just been a boring ol' housewife. Her attempts at making a new career for herself in child welfare have failed. Nobody in their right mind would let her even babysit for them. Kate has lost all credibility both as a medic and as a Mother.
But Gerry can keep his white coat and stethoscope. Nothing's going to stand in the way of his career. Kate must feel bitter about that, surely?

All in my humble opinion, of course.
avatar
Lance De Boils

Posts : 806
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by aiyoyo on 14.07.13 17:42

Oh come on, it's obvious she much prefers to stay home to muck around with the twins,  and to mess up their heads about Monster, playing game of slaying the Monster who took Madeleine, than going to work to examine 6 corpses?

She didn't hold a proper job back then even when they couldn't afford the mortgage, why would she now suddenly develop an ambition go to work now that they've amassed millions?
 Besides, don't forget she's been telling the world she's the chief campaigner working hard from home behind the scene to search for Maddie.  Until the Yard's review forced her premature redundancy of course.

That's one professional live that has no occupational hazard, no risk of being strike off, rather nice position to be in, if you think about it.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by suzyjohnson on 14.07.13 17:50

I was trying to say something earlier, I typed it out and posted it on here, but now I can't find it, apologies if I've put it somewhere else by mistake.

When the Tapas group made their initial statements to the PJ, this was before the unprecedented publicity, before the Fund, the European Campaign; before the lawsuits and everything. At the time when they agreed to help, if that were the case, they could never have foreseen all of this. 

Assuming that they wanted to go back on what they said, at what stage would they have been able to do so?

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by tigger on 14.07.13 18:23

suzyjohnson wrote:I was trying to say something earlier, I typed it out and posted it on here, but now I can't find it, apologies if I've put it somewhere else by mistake.

When the Tapas group made their initial statements to the PJ, this was before the unprecedented publicity, before the Fund, the European Campaign; before the lawsuits and everything. At the time when they agreed to help, if that were the case, they could never have foreseen all of this. 

Assuming that they wanted to go back on what they said, at what stage would they have been able to do so?

By around the 14th of May that was already too late. They recorded statements as 'memory for the future' at the PJ's request. I believe these videos can be used in court as if the witness was in the witness box, so under oath. If you look at the Rothley Meeting topic, you'll see (in the january 08 timeline topic as well) that ROB and JT wanted to change their statements to the extend that they consulted a lawyer.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by sheila.edwards on 14.07.13 22:01

weren't they only ones away from table a lot and in time,? to fit in with smiths sighting!JT saw abductor? Dogs did not alert to GMs clothes!Don't blame them id want only exact movement down for future for that night.:spin:Uk police brought GM as man of yr. for speech links to fund STU etc. They also do not have CR handy if needed.Perhaps friendship or if there really was an abduction that would bind them, but if case goes to a trial that would be an unbinding moment IMO
spin

sheila.edwards

Posts : 211
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-04-23
Location : wirral

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by roy rovers on 15.07.13 0:11

sheila.edwards wrote:weren't they only ones away from table a lot and in time,? to fit in with smiths sighting!JT saw abductor? Dogs did not alert to GMs clothes!Don't blame them id want only exact movement down for future for that night.:spin:Uk police brought GM as man of yr. for speech links to fund STU etc. They also do not have CR handy if needed.Perhaps friendship or if there really was an abduction that would bind them, but if case goes to a trial that would be an unbinding moment IMO
spin

IMO the unbinding moment would be before the case goes to trial. Probably after the 38 have been investigated and the heat turns on the T9. Then its down to what exactly what went on, degrees of culpability and sentencing rules to see who breaks rank first.
avatar
roy rovers

Posts : 472
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2012-03-04

Back to top Go down

Re: What binds them?

Post by aiyoyo on 15.07.13 5:53

tigger wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:I was trying to say something earlier, I typed it out and posted it on here, but now I can't find it, apologies if I've put it somewhere else by mistake.

When the Tapas group made their initial statements to the PJ, this was before the unprecedented publicity, before the Fund, the European Campaign; before the lawsuits and everything. At the time when they agreed to help, if that were the case, they could never have foreseen all of this. 

Assuming that they wanted to go back on what they said, at what stage would they have been able to do so?

By around the 14th of May that was already too late. They recorded statements as 'memory for the future' at the PJ's request. I believe these videos can be used in court as if the witness was in the witness box, so under oath. If you look at the Rothley Meeting topic, you'll see (in the january 08 timeline  topic as well) that ROB and JT wanted to change their statements to the extend that they consulted a lawyer.

You would think that if anyone wishes to change their statement all they need to do is tell the Police.
Consulting lawyers indicate they have a fear of something. IIRC it was mentioned they fear the mccanns connection.
There's something sinister about the company surrounding the mccanns, the sort that pledged undying financial support who set up the dodgy detectives operation and meddled with witnesses. The T7 are witnesses - go figure!

If there's a conspiracy there is no need to fear or consult lawyers or wanting to change statement for that matter because the (government) protection is already in place. Yes, they got an unprecedented high level of help from government and a few questions may have to be asked but I don't believe conspiracy theory applies in this case.



avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum