Re: CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION - However, Kate and Gerry have banned the re-enactment of their daughter’s disappearance from taking place in Portugal through fear of angering the country’s police.

by tasprin 07.10.13 15:36

I was wondering why the McCanns banned the reconstruction from being produced in Portugal. Perhaps Scotland Yard could not make an official police reconstruction in Portugal without the collaboration of the PJ and this imo may have required the reopening of the case. The McCanns do NOT want the case reopened unless it is on their terms (abduction only) so that scenario would be out of the question for them. IMO they gave a totally implausible reason ('upsetting') for dodging the SY reconstruction in Spain for similar reasons; re-enactment would have demonstrated how impossible an abduction was and if they attempted to change their official statements surely the PJ could reopen the case on that basis. It'll be interesting to see how it is all manipulated to make them look good, for public consumption (that's what will happen imo)

by jeanmonroe 07.10.13 15:38

He told Sky News he and his wife Kate were "very pleased with the work of the Metropolitan Police both during the review process and now that they have moved into an investigatory phrase.

"I think that is all that any parent would want when their child is missing.
_______________________________________________________________

So why did you let the case be 'shelved' in the first place and you wife later saying that she' was GLAD the case was CLOSED' and that ' if the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't matter!'?

Any normal parent of a missing child would want the investigation to have never been stopped.

You and your wife were the only people that wanted it stopped.

You could have had the 'investigation' unshelved on any day in the last SIX YEARS, by writing, asking personally, for the Portuguese Authorities to re-open the case.

All it would have cost you is the price of a stamp

Indeed. you could have stopped it being 'shelved' in the first place.

But you DIDN'T!

So let's have no BS about you are happy NOW for a new investigation phase!

by **tigger** 07.10.13 15:42

candyfloss wrote:EXCLUSIVE: McCann's baffled as Portugal refuses to show Madeleine TV appeal

MADELEINE MCCANN'S parents are “baffled” why a Crimewatch appeal to help find their missing daughter will not be shown in Portugal.

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]/Published 7th October 2013

Broadcasters in the country where Maddie disappeared have declined to screen the TV special, which will be aired in the UK, Holland and Germany next week.

British police are at a loss to explain why no Portuguese television company has taken up the opportunity to show the BBC programme.

They say it will feature a new theory about what happened to the then three-year-old who vanished from her parents’ holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

It will include a reconstruction of events before her disappearance and a fresh appeal from doctor parents Kate and Gerry, both 45.

UK detectives are trying to trace up to 10,000 people who were in the resort when Madeleine went missing.

They have obtained a database of every mobile phone in the area at the time and are tracing the owners across 31 countries.

Most hailed from Britain, Ireland, Germany and Holland and the Crimewatch programme, or a version of it, will be screened in all four countries.

But none of the 3,000 people who live and work in Praia da Luz will see it, leaving a giant hole in the police appeal.

Last night a source close to the McCanns told the Daily Star: “Kate and Gerry are not criticising Portugal for not running the Crimewatch show but it is rather baffling.

“The Crimewatch screening is an arrangement between the police and broadcasters.’’

Scotland Yard detectives have interviewed 442 people as part of the new £5m Operation Grange. They have identified 41 as “of interest”, including 15 Brits.

Asked why the show is not being seen in Portugal, Assistant Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley said no broadcaster there had taken it up.

That is a matter for them,’’ he said.

Yesterday, it was revealed a barrister has told Gtr Manchester Police a man confessed to him at a party that he had met Madeleine, who would now be 10, on a Mediterranean island just “weeks ago”.

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

Well of course they won't show this fairy tale in the middle of a court case. It's quite shameless to even try . They've told lies about the investigation and the Portuguese people and this new work of fiction isn't likely to be an improvement on their first effort.

I expect those refusal headlines were ready to go weeks ago.

by jeanmonroe 07.10.13 15:45

Scotland Yard assistant commissioner Mark Rowley said it is hoped it will produce new witnesses, but a conclusion to the case "is not imminent".
_____________________________________________________

Well not before BBC's 'McCannwatch' programme anyway!

So that gives all those nasty people who WERE going to be arrested 'shortly' at least 7 days to effect their 'escapes'!

by Angelique 07.10.13 15:47

jeanmonroe wrote:He told Sky News he and his wife Kate were "very pleased with the work of the Metropolitan Police both during the review process and now that they have moved into an investigatory phrase.

"I think that is all that any parent would want when their child is missing.
_______________________________________________________________

So why did you let the case be 'shelved' in the first place and you wife later saying that she' was GLAD the case was CLOSED' and that ' if the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't matter!'?

Any normal parent of a missing child would want the investigation to have never been stopped.

You and your wife were the only people that wanted it stopped.

You could have had the 'investigation' unshelved on any day in the last SIX YEARS, by writing, asking personally, for the Portuguese Authorities to re-open the case.

All it would have cost you is the price of a stamp

Indeed. you could have stopped it being 'shelved' in the first place.

But you DIDN'T!

So let's have no BS about you are happy NOW for a new investigation phase!

jeanmonroe

Maybe they are happy now - because they have the investigation on UK soil. This way they can manipulate it to what they want.

It will never be accepted in Portugal but they think perhaps it will clear their name here. Just saying.

by Cristobell 07.10.13 15:50

I wonder how UK news channels would respond to a foreign police force broadcasting a programme in the UK showing Scotland Yard where they have gone wrong in previous cases, and perhaps finishing with a 'your welcome'?

by aiyoyo 07.10.13 15:50

Cherry Blossom wrote:Sky video is there now

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

Dr McCann, speaking outside the General Medical Council (GMC) in London, also said the press needed tougher, independent regulation in order to protect the lives of ordinary people.

He talked about need for speedy arbitration for victims of press intrusion and misreporting, in the light of the Leveson Inquiry, at which he gave evidence.

He said "Ordinary peoples lives are being damaged every day of the week by press intrusion, by lies being printed or exaggeration."

It "personally troubles him and his wife" that "stories are published with no regard to Madeleine's safety, to the investigation itself or whether they will be putting Madeleine or others in danger or alerting those responsible".

He highlighted the need for an independent body that could act quickly saying: "We have absolutely no confidence that the press barons can regulate themselves."

This is part of the article from the above link. It has absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine.

Is Gerry pre-empting negative press after the recon aired and wanting protection against onslaught from the press?

He's a fine one to complain about stories that jeopardise Maddie's safety! They highlight her eye even when advised not to!

by aiyoyo 07.10.13 15:52

ShuBob wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Sky video is there now

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
He does blink a lot does Gerry.

He looks very uncomfortable.

by tasprin 07.10.13 15:57

jeanmonroe wrote:He told Sky News he and his wife Kate were "very pleased with the work of the Metropolitan Police both during the review process and now that they have moved into an investigatory phrase.

"I think that is all that any parent would want when their child is missing.
_______________________________________________________________

So why did you let the case be 'shelved' in the first place and you wife later saying that she' was GLAD the case was CLOSED' and that ' if the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't matter!'?

Any normal parent of a missing child would want the investigation to have never been stopped.

You and your wife were the only people that wanted it stopped.

You could have had the 'investigation' unshelved on any day in the last SIX YEARS, by writing, asking personally, for the Portuguese Authorities to re-open the case.

All it would have cost you is the price of a stamp

Indeed. you could have stopped it being 'shelved' in the first place.

But you DIDN'T!

So let's have no BS about you are happy NOW for a new investigation phase!

Yes Jean, exactly, they do not want the case reopened unless it is strictly on their terms. It seems that's what they've got with the £5m SY review, a team dedicated to searching for a non-existent abductor. There can't be room to move in Andy Redwood's office with those nine elephants in the room.

by jeanmonroe 07.10.13 15:58

WHY did the BBC go to Spain to film a 'reconstruction' if it wasn't the real location in PDL?

Why didn't they film it in the UK?

Another two week 'jolly' for the crew, in sunny Spain, all on BBC ex's?

No 'cost cutting' there for the Beeb!

Wonder if Pattern and Hall went too, only to oversee things, you understand.

by tasprin 07.10.13 16:03

Cristobell wrote:I wonder how UK news channels would respond to a foreign police force broadcasting a programme in the UK showing Scotland Yard where they have gone wrong in previous cases, and perhaps finishing with a 'your welcome'?

Yes, what do foreign forces think of the cringe worthy way Scotland Yard are humiliating Portugal? They must dread Brit tourists.

by jeanmonroe 07.10.13 16:04

It "personally troubles him and his wife" that "stories are published with no regard to Madeleine's safety, to the investigation itself or whether they will be putting Madeleine or others in danger or alerting those responsible".
____________________________________________________

THIS from a bloke who was TOLD by the PJ NOT to 'advertise her eye' for fear that an 'abductor' would 'harm' her to get rid of 'evidence'

He was TOLD it could be the 'death knell' for Madeleine.

But he went ahead anyway because it was a 'good marketing ploy'

So HE diliberately put Madeleine in mortal DANGER all by himself with absolutely no regard for Madeleine's SAFETY!

and NOW he's moaning?

Uneffing believing!

by Guest 07.10.13 16:09

Snipped from MWT Thread pg 3

I believe what happened on May 3 was that Madeleine woke up, cried for a short while, realised her parents weren't in the apartment as they had not come in to settle her, so she climbed out of bed and walked around the apartment.

She found the back patio door was insecure and partly open so she walked out, went down the small flight of steps and out of the gate, turning right down towards the entrance to the resort and the Tapas bar.

It was at this point that she was most likely abducted by an opportunistic predatory paedophile.

Interestingly the police dogs first tracked a scent down this exact route. Unfortunately, although it is within range of the supermarket CCTV it was not working.

I don't believe a paedophile was watching the apartment nor do I believe an offender entered the apartment this would be too high-risk

Wonder if MWT has had some input? but then he'd have to deny is last sentence

by jeanmonroe 07.10.13 16:20

GM "putting Madeleine or others in danger....."

OTHERS?

How many other kids WERE 'abducted' on the 3rd May 2007??

by **Hobs** 07.10.13 16:53

Newintown wrote:
Hobs wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
At 4:19

Oh dear gerry you have put your feet in your mouth haven't you

You mention about kids cry when they are getting bathed, when they are tired, when we are doing that and then he says
" And we did wonder if that was when they were being put to bed"

The brain knows what it knows and wants to tell the truth.

So gerry, who was putting them to bed if it wasn't you and kate?
If it had been either of you then the question would never have arisen as you would have been there.

This leads to the question of if they were being put to bed in apt 5a where were you and kate and who was putting them to bed?

If you and kate were in apt 5a where were the children being put to bed and again by whom?
Sorry to come back to this so late but it's taken me 3 hours to catch up on all the threads on the forum!

I can't get any sound on these youtube videos for some reason Hobs but did Gerry actually say "bed" because on the McCannfiles, there is the transcript of the interview with Dermot Murnaghan of Sky News from 1 May 08 and Gerry states "Was it when when they were bathing". The video has been deleted but all the transcript is there. It's the 3rd para down -

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

So that would indicate that the McCanns were not there when the children were being bathed and put to bed, so who did or was bathing them and putting them to bed???

Hi Newintown. These are his actual words, he mentions bathed as well as being put to bed.
In other interviews kate also says pretty much the same thing in regard to was it when they were being bathed or put to bed.
This leads to the following questions ( i did a whole post on this elsewhere)
Who was bathing the children if it wasn't kate and gerry?
if the mccanns were bathing thie rchildren the question would not have arisen nor their statement since they would have been present when they cried.

Who put the children to bed if not the mccanns since again the question would not have arisen as they would have been putting the children to bed and would know why they cried.

Now.

If the children were bathed and put to bed in apt.5a and kate and gerry never heard them crying and thus didn't come, who was bathing them? why? and where were kate and gerry if not in apt 5a since they clearly never heard the crying

If kate and gerry were in apt. 5a as per their statements, who was then bathing the children and putting them to bed and why and more importantly in whose apartment were the children?

This makes me wonder why the children were bathed and put to bed in a different apartment and then, how many other children were bathed and put to bed in an apartment not their own and why?

This would account for an adult being absent each night from the table, they were babysitting.

Since the children were being babysat by a tapas member there then could not have been an abduction as claimed as there was an adult present and no abductor is going to take on an adult to get to the OLDEST child.

Since there could not have been an abduction as claimed, this leads to the question what happened to Madeleine if she wasn't abducted?

As the cadaver dogs reacted only to the mccanns apt, kates clothing, cuddlecat and a child's t shirt and not in any other apartment, we assume Madeleine is dead.

If the dogs were wrong we could have expected false positives in other apartments and vehicles.
Given their record of 100% and no false positives we have to conclude that there was a dead body in apt 5a, that cuddlecat, kate's clothing and a child's t shirt came into contact with said body and that the hire car also at some point held a dead body.

Depending on environmental conditions cadaverine strong enough to be detected by a trained cadaver dog takes about 90 mins (the body starts to decompose at the moment of death, given enough time even we can detect it's smell and once smelled it is never forgotten)

Since cadaverine was detected it means that a dead Madeleine lay in situ for at least 90 mins and thence after wherever she was placed or came into contact with cadaverine would be left ( BTW kate, cadaverine doesn't evaporate after 30 days, it contains fatty oils and it's touch cannot be washed out, which is why furniture or clothing that has been in contact with a dead body ( after 90 mins) will always have that slight smell and clothing, furniture etc has to be disposed of)

Since there were so many doctors present why did they not do cpr or treat whatever injuries and call 911 if it had been an accident?

The reason being awkward questions would be asked for one and secondly if she died it was vital an autopsy not be performed.

When a parent acts to prevent an autpsy or hides the body of their dead child, they have a reason to. Guilty knowledge.

What was so bad that the parents in particular and the group as a whole were prepared to face neglect charges resulting in a max 10 stretch rather than admit the truth?

If the car is still around cadaver dogs would again react because cadaverine is permant, if it was down to rotting meat and dirty diapers etc the smell would have dissipated or could have beeen cleaned out. ( Remember casey anthony and her dead squirrels climbed into the car and the stains and smell blamed on pizza and garbage bags - there was no wet garbage only dry and the smell was strong enough to taint the whole vehicle and be captured in cans for analysis)

by **Hobs** 07.10.13 17:00

“No one apart from the kidnapper and possibly friends and family know where Madeleine is.

Oh dear another foot in mouth moment.
Notice there is no pronoun.
Pronouns are instinctive, the first thing we learn as infants is I, ME, MINE.

In this case DON'T LOOK at what you THINK he said, LOOK at what was ACTUALLY SAID.

He doesn't tell us the kidnappers friends and family so we can't do it for him.

Order is also important and here we see friends put before family.

This tells us friends know or suspect what happened before family and who do we know that this specific order is relevant to?

Why also do we have a change in language from the previous abductor to now a kidnapper?

Kidnappers take someone and demand a ransom, abductors take someone and there is no demand for a ransom.

Abductors can be a stranger, a family friend even a family member particularly in custody disputes.

We see statements such as they were abducted by their parent and taken to wherever whilst in a messy divorce.

They don't say kidnapped by their parent.

We also see he was kidnapped by a gang and held for ramsom.

A change in language is a change in reality, is the change warranted?

by Guest 07.10.13 17:35

Newintown wrote:
Hobs wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
At 4:19

Oh dear gerry you have put your feet in your mouth haven't you

You mention about kids cry when they are getting bathed, when they are tired, when we are doing that and then he says
" And we did wonder if that was when they were being put to bed"

The brain knows what it knows and wants to tell the truth.

So gerry, who was putting them to bed if it wasn't you and kate?
If it had been either of you then the question would never have arisen as you would have been there.

This leads to the question of if they were being put to bed in apt 5a where were you and kate and who was putting them to bed?

If you and kate were in apt 5a where were the children being put to bed and again by whom?
Sorry to come back to this so late but it's taken me 3 hours to catch up on all the threads on the forum!

I can't get any sound on these youtube videos for some reason Hobs but did Gerry actually say "bed" because on the McCannfiles, there is the transcript of the interview with Dermot Murnaghan of Sky News from 1 May 08 and Gerry states "Was it when when they were bathing". The video has been deleted but all the transcript is there. It's the 3rd para down -

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

So that would indicate that the McCanns were not there when the children were being bathed and put to bed, so who did or was bathing them and putting them to bed???

Very shrewd observation.

Who's meddling with the transcripts?

Who deletes them?

AR/SY: are you aware of this?

by Guest 07.10.13 17:37

jeanmonroe wrote:He told Sky News he and his wife Kate were "very pleased with the work of the Metropolitan Police both during the review process and now that they have moved into an investigatory phrase.

"I think that is all that any parent would want when their child is missing.
_______________________________________________________________

So why did you let the case be 'shelved' in the first place and you wife later saying that she' was GLAD the case was CLOSED' and that ' if the case is re-opened, or NOT, it dosen't matter!'?

Any normal parent of a missing child would want the investigation to have never been stopped.

You and your wife were the only people that wanted it stopped.

You could have had the 'investigation' unshelved on any day in the last SIX YEARS, by writing, asking personally, for the Portuguese Authorities to re-open the case.

All it would have cost you is the price of a stamp

Indeed. you could have stopped it being 'shelved' in the first place.

But you DIDN'T!

So let's have no BS about you are happy NOW for a new investigation phase!

No Jeanmonroe: I would have wanted my child back. That is the single thing I would EVER have wanted.
I wouldn't give a shit about any investigation

by ultimaThule 07.10.13 17:44

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY did the BBC go to Spain to film a 'reconstruction' if it wasn't the real location in PDL?

Why didn't they film it in the UK?

Another two week 'jolly' for the crew, in sunny Spain, all on BBC ex's?

No 'cost cutting' there for the Beeb!

Wonder if Pattern and Hall went too, only to oversee things, you understand.

If they needed real live palm trees to make the set look authentic, the K&G show could have filmed in Torquay - but maybe Fawlty Towers was fully booked?

If Basil and Sybil can be persuaded to allow K&G to check in for a weekend break the resulting episode can be titled 'Don't Mention The Dogs' yes

by Guest 07.10.13 18:15

ultimaThule wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:WHY did the BBC go to Spain to film a 'reconstruction' if it wasn't the real location in PDL?

Why didn't they film it in the UK?

Another two week 'jolly' for the crew, in sunny Spain, all on BBC ex's?

No 'cost cutting' there for the Beeb!

Wonder if Pattern and Hall went too, only to oversee things, you understand.

If they needed real live palm trees to make the set look authentic, the K&G show could have filmed in Torquay - but maybe Fawlty Towers was fully booked?

If Basil and Sybil can be persuaded to allow K&G to check in for a weekend break the resulting episode can be titled 'Don't Mention The Dogs'

by sallypelt 07.10.13 18:18

Clarence Mitchell, the one who "give up his job" with a Labour administration, to go and work for the McCann's is on Twitter using childish attacks on Ed Miliband. He will never change, will he? I don't think Mitchell has a hope in hell of winning in Brighton. What a liability to have in Parliament.

by ultimaThule 07.10.13 18:46

sallypelt wrote:Clarence Mitchell, the one who "give up his job" with a Labour administration, to go and work for the McCann's is on Twitter using childish attacks on Ed Miliband. He will never change, will he? I don't think Mitchell has a hope in hell of winning in Brighton. What a liability to have in Parliament.

Either the Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavillion has never heard of the saying 'to thine own self be true' or he's got 'duplicity' running through his bones like a stick of the famous rock.

Fortunately, the pink/blue one's got no chance of winning that particular seat. Unfortunately, after having been seen off by the good people of ~~London on Sea~~ Brighton, he may be put forward for a safe seat elsewhere.

by Smokeandmirrors 07.10.13 19:12

plebgate wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:

"As parents, we won't accept Madeleine is dead until we see clear evidence that that is the case," he told ITV News.
"Clearly we're encouraged. There is new evidence, and the appeals will hopefully lead to further new evidence."
What on earth is he saying?!
Dung.

Quite.

WHy can't he just be normal and say he wants her home and he wants that to happen as soon as possible?

All this saying leads leading to new evidence or more evidence blah blah, never sounds as if there is any sense of urgency to it. And that I find very odd. Never comes across as anxious or impatient for her to come home, always sounds like he is projecting the situation further into the future, not a "here and now" situation but like he's still expecting it to go on for a long time.

Very, very weird.

by Liz Eagles 07.10.13 19:17

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
plebgate wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:

"As parents, we won't accept Madeleine is dead until we see clear evidence that that is the case," he told ITV News.
"Clearly we're encouraged. There is new evidence, and the appeals will hopefully lead to further new evidence."
What on earth is he saying?!
Dung.
Quite.

WHy can't he just be normal and say he wants her home and he wants that to happen as soon as possible?

All this saying leads leading to new evidence or more evidence blah blah, never sounds as if there is any sense of urgency to it. And that I find very odd. Never comes across as anxious or impatient for her to come home, always sounds like he is projecting the situation further into the future, not a "here and now" situation but like he's still expecting it to go on for a long time.

Very, very weird.

He's in a great rush to have the Leveson Inquiry recommendations implemented though.

by Ribisl 07.10.13 20:26

Hobs wrote:Since there were so many doctors present why did they not do cpr or treat whatever injuries and call 911 if it had been an accident?

The reason being awkward questions would be asked for one and secondly if she died it was vital an autopsy not be performed.

When a parent acts to prevent an autpsy or hides the body of their dead child, they have a reason to. Guilty knowledge.

What was so bad that the parents in particular and the group as a whole were prepared to face neglect charges resulting in a max 10 stretch rather than admit the truth?

Going off topic, sorry, but I am with you on this Hobbs. I've always believed that the key to understanding this case is to discover why they wouldn't allow an autopsy to be performed on Madeleine. Was it to hide

1. the evidence of medication that might have led to her demise?
2. the evidence of some physical abuse that might have directly or indirectly caused her death?
3. the evidence of sexual abuse?

I don't think they would have gone this length to cover up her death if the only uncomfortable truth that might emerge was her real paternity, for example.

by plebgate 07.10.13 20:49

jeanmonroe wrote:It "personally troubles him and his wife" that "stories are published with no regard to Madeleine's safety, to the investigation itself or whether they will be putting Madeleine or others in danger or alerting those responsible".
____________________________________________________

THIS from a bloke who was TOLD by the PJ NOT to 'advertise her eye' for fear that an 'abductor' would 'harm' her to get rid of 'evidence'

He was TOLD it could be the 'death knell' for Madeleine.

But he went ahead anyway because it was a 'good marketing ploy'

So HE diliberately put Madeleine in mortal DANGER all by himself with absolutely no regard for Madeleine's SAFETY!

and NOW he's moaning?

Uneffing believing!

I do not know how he can go on camera and come out with some of the things he says. IMO it is pressure from a number of directions.

I do not believe that he is making many friends in the newspaper community. Amanda Platell made comment several weeks ago about biting the hand..........

by plebgate 07.10.13 20:52

You know what I am bored with him and the newspapers over the weekend.

Roll on Anne's reports about Mr. A's witnesses, something sensible to discuss then.

by ShuBob 07.10.13 20:56

candyfloss wrote:
Ribisl wrote:@Aiyoyo, tigger and Aquila
I think he is bonkers. Should simply ignore his tedious mutterings.
I don't think there is any need for that Ribisl, how would you or other members feel if members suddenly started making comments about you. A rule of this forum is no attacks on posters, as you said if you don't like a comment ignore it. If you are concerned about a poster contact admin or discuss by pm.

Well said Candy thumbup

Please let's draw a line over this now roses

by ShuBob 07.10.13 21:03

plebgate wrote:You know what I am bored with him and the newspapers over the weekend.

Roll on Anne's reports about Mr. A's witnesses, something sensible to discuss then.

He's getting slaughtered on Twitter by people who don't appear to follow the case. Unsurprisingly, they haven't claimed Amaral is the reason for their dislike of him.

by Guest 07.10.13 21:05

ShuBob wrote:
plebgate wrote:You know what I am bored with him and the newspapers over the weekend.

Roll on Anne's reports about Mr. A's witnesses, something sensible to discuss then.
He's getting slaughtered on Twitter by people who don't appear to follow the case. Unsurprisingly, they haven't claimed Amaral is the reason for their dislike of him.

Where is this ShuBob? Can you give a link?

Latest topics