The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Mm11

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Regist10

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Page 9 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 12 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aquila on 26.01.14 11:03

The parents of Madeleine didn't turn up for the hearing.

The parents of Madeleine McCann turn up on media sofas (bless Lorraine Kelly, Oprah, Piers Morgan), turn up for sporting/charitable events, turn up at the libel trial for a photo shoot, turn up, well just about everywhere they want to turn up.

They didn't turn up at the Ward of Court hearing.
aquila
aquila

Posts : 9340
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aiyoyo on 26.01.14 11:37

@Okeydokey wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
 

@ okeydokey "And yet - she declares them innocent....."
Err......where is the evidence for that ?  

@ Justice Hogg
"Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today."

It would be interesting to know who (apart from Mccanns) was/were included in the application.   IFGL or Mccanns lawyers ?
This might have an impact on the WOC.




The evidence that she is declaring them innocent while - REMEMBER! - they were still officially arguidos in Portugal:


Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. [Hogg accepts the McCann account - clearly she accepts that they do not know the whereabouts of Madeleine and are incapable of recovering her themselves. ] I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, [She clearly takes the side of the McCanns against Amaral and other PJ officers on this - she is dismissing the dogs' evidence and the DNA evidence] it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine [Clearly implies they cannot have any knowledge of the circumstances of her disappearance.] . Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. [This clearly identifies the McCanns as victims]

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.  [Since Hogg already accepts the McCanns' search is genuine, this is a further exoneration - it cannot refer to them. Its effect is heightened by the next "purple prose" passage. Since she knows the McCanns, she cannot be referring to the McCanns]

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court.

The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

okeydokey,
With due respects that's only your interpretations.
While it is fair to say Justice Hogg took things at face value which is inevitable since the Mccanns were neither arrested nor charged for any crime, it is not quite correct to say she "declares" them innocent. If you've seen official declaration by Judge Hogg that the mccanns are innocent, please post it up. Otherwise it is plain obfuscation on your part.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aiyoyo on 26.01.14 11:49

@ Justice Hogg
I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court.

The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

From the above, it would appear the WOC is in place indefinitely as (1) no stature of limit was stated and (2) we have not heard of its withdrawal.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Jemmied_Shatter on 26.01.14 11:57

When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. It was only after the British Embassy intervened and the British Government realised that nobody was chasing after the ABDUCTOR who by that stage was clean away. In the months that followed the DISGRACED PJ came up with what their version of events was in accordance with their so called forensic examination and even calling in DOGS to verify their so called EVIDENCE. All this allowed Madeleine to be taken and used ever farther away from her family.
Now we are 7 years down the line, there have been hundreds of items of EVIDENCE pieced together by the BIG BOYS of private investigation that SCOTLAND YARD have been tasked with finding the ABDUCTOR on the orders of the PRIME MINISTER. THEY had better jolly well do as they are told this time otherwise there's going to be RIOTING on the streets of Britain.
avatar
Jemmied_Shatter

Posts : 67
Join date : 2014-01-12

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage on 26.01.14 12:03

BBC NEWS Monday 18 Jan 1999 Published at 11.51 GMT

UK
Justice Hogg: A career in child welfare


A judge whose career has centred around cases concerning child welfare will decide whether runaway foster parents Jeff and Jenny Bramley are to be allowed to adopt Jade and Hannah Bennett.
Mrs Justice Hogg, a mother of two children both aged under 10, has been a High Court judge in the Family Division since 1995 and served on the council of the Children's Society from 1990 to 1995Dame Mary Claire Hogg, 52, comes from a famous legal and political dynasty; she is the daughter of former Lord Chancellor Lord Hailsham and sister of former agriculture minister Douglas Hogg.

Educated at St Paul's girls school in London, she decided to train for the law instead of going to university.
When she was appointed to her present position in 1995, she became only the seventh female High Court judge.

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 _257306_justice_hogg150
A year later, she hit the headlines after issuing an emergency order for a pregnant woman to be held in hospital against her will and forced to have her baby by Caesarean section.

Mrs Justice Hogg has that admitted her own feelings as a mother prompted her to issue an appeal last November for the Bramleys to return Jade and Hannah, saying she was "very worried for their safety".

The High Court tipstaff said at the time he had never heard of a similar plea from a judge and that, although acting in a judicial capacity, Mrs Justice Hogg was "concerned as a mother" about the two girls.

She was awarded the DBE in 1995 and was given an honorary doctorate of law the same year by the University of Westminster, of which she is governor.
.
ETA This must be her brother then:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5310069/MPs-expenses-Clearing-the-moat-at-Douglas-Hoggs-manor.html
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 12:11

@Jemmied_Shatter wrote:When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. It was only after the British Embassy intervened and the British Government realised that nobody was chasing after the ABDUCTOR who by that stage was clean away. In the months that followed the DISGRACED PJ came up with what their version of events was in accordance with their so called forensic examination and even calling in DOGS to verify their so called EVIDENCE. All this allowed Madeleine to be taken and used ever farther away from her family.
Now we are 7 years down the line, there have been hundreds of items of EVIDENCE pieced together by the BIG BOYS of private investigation that SCOTLAND YARD have been tasked with finding the ABDUCTOR on the orders of the PRIME MINISTER. THEY had better jolly well do as they are told this time otherwise there's going to be RIOTING on the streets of Britain.

You really feel for little Maddie McCann: good for you

Also, you feel strongly for her parents

You obviously believe them. Good. That's your choice, no doubt evidence-based (=proven)

Please inform us of the provenance of said evidence, so we can verify your statements:
1. Maddie Mc Cann was abducted;
2. By an abductor who got away, not being one of her own parents

Let's have it, a.s.a.p., thank you
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 12:20

I presume jemmied shatter is being sarcastic Portia and thinks a whitewash is happening?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 12:26

Bellisa wrote:I presume jemmied shatter is being sarcastic Portia and thinks a whitewash is happening?

Oops, missed that.
Not quite awake yet after watching Vavrinka clobbering ailing Nadal
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by sami on 26.01.14 12:32

@Jemmied_Shatter wrote:When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. 


Why is it the only version that can be considered ?

What was wrong, in your opinion, with the PJ treating the case as that of any other missing child ?  At the outset, what were they supposed to do ?  A child was reported missing, they investigated it, in the first instance as a missing child.  I don't understand what you are saying.
avatar
sami

Posts : 965
Join date : 2012-04-08

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage on 26.01.14 13:10

@sami wrote:
@Jemmied_Shatter wrote:When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. 


Why is it the only version that can be considered ?

What was wrong, in your opinion, with the PJ treating the case as that of any other missing child ?  At the outset, what were they supposed to do ?  A child was reported missing, they investigated it, in the first instance as a missing child.  I don't understand what you are saying.
Sami, I think Jemmied Shatter was being sarcastic.
ETA I hope so, anyway!!!
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by sami on 26.01.14 13:22

@Mirage wrote:
@sami wrote:
@Jemmied_Shatter wrote:When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. 


Why is it the only version that can be considered ?

What was wrong, in your opinion, with the PJ treating the case as that of any other missing child ?  At the outset, what were they supposed to do ?  A child was reported missing, they investigated it, in the first instance as a missing child.  I don't understand what you are saying.
Sami, I think Jemmied Shatter was being sarcastic.
ETA I hope so, anyway!!!


Oh, if that is the case I'm sorry.
avatar
sami

Posts : 965
Join date : 2012-04-08

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe on 26.01.14 13:56

@Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that

I appreciate this was a parody posting, but many a true word is spoken in jest. In this case, the inconsistencies in the statements of the McCann's et cie make the Bush/Bliar 'Weapons of mass misrepresentation' thesis appear positively credible. 

One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 14:19

@diatribe wrote:
@Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that



One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.
It's not just the lies and inconsistencies, it's the deliberate placing of new suspects in the media whenever the heat is on them.  So obvious, that we expect it and nine times out of ten can accurately guess when it is going to happen.  In all my years I have never seen anything like it.  I don't believe for a minute that our government and police force are oblivious to what the Mccann's are doing especially when Clarence Mitchell is at the front of it.  We have GCHQ for god's sake and a lot of intelligent people in this country.   Why would it take all this time to get nowhere with this case.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Cristobell on 26.01.14 14:50

melisande wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
@Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that



One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.
It's not just the lies and inconsistencies, it's the deliberate placing of new suspects in the media whenever the heat is on them.  So obvious, that we expect it and nine times out of ten can accurately guess when it is going to happen.  In all my years I have never seen anything like it.  I don't believe for a minute that our government and police force are oblivious to what the Mccann's are doing especially when Clarence Mitchell is at the front of it.  We have GCHQ for god's sake and a lot of intelligent people in this country.   Why would it take all this time to get nowhere with this case.



I agree, it is taking forever, and it is very frustrating. I honestly don't believe they are investigating child trafficking, paedophile gangs or anything along those lines, and I'm pretty sure they are not looking for a live child. If they were, all this nonsense in the press etc, would surely result in her death. There doesn't seem to be any sign of the 37 homicide detectives hopping on planes following up leads. The picture of DCI Redwood with the 2 year old Maddie behind him, speaks volumes, and Martin Brunt's murder tweet was a classic Freudian slip.

If they are not chasing up leads, then what are they doing? As we well know this case is unbelievably complex, almost certainly there will be a number of people involved, all of whom must be prosecuted separately as they will be represented separately. SY and indeed the PJ, need to ensure they attribute the right crimes to the right people, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the press and the lawyers will be all over it, scrutinizing every detail. The McCanns will continue to plead innocence and claim they are being set up. Of course this will very much depend on what they have left in the coffers, I suspect it is not very much, given the alarming rate at which they get through money, and the libel action in Lisbon looks set to wipe them out. The Fund has enabled them to continue the veneer of grieving parents, but once its gone, the house of cards will collapse. You are only as innocent as the amount you have in the bank, if they still had millions they would be home and dry.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by PeterMac on 26.01.14 15:41

@diatribe wrote:
One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

I think it takes even more than that.
What you need is an Orwellian 1984 ability to believe two things simultaneously.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

You have to be able to believe that Gerry went in through the front door using his key AND that he went in through the Patio door which was unlocked.
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe Kate when she says the curtains were wide open AND when she says they were tightly shut
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe that you can sit by a pool sweating in brilliant sunshine, on a day when there was no sun and a cold wind was blowing.   And so on
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account

In fairness to Carter-Ruck (why, one asks ?) Adam Tudor is not a stupid man.  Mrs Matorrell is not a stupid woman.
Quite the contrary.
They both know perfectly well that the McCanns were not telling the truth on some occasions; that their clients were in fact lying.
They know perfectly well that Trafigura are deserving of opprobrium.
But they are paid good money to ensure that this is never tested in a court, by 'fudging' the issues with procedural points.
They boast openly about this on their web site.
They are brilliant at what they do.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10503
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by mysterion on 26.01.14 17:31

I believe your claim that the fund is central to the future of this case is spot on. I believe I live quite near KM's parents and the high street is a shadow of its former self. It used to have yellow ribbons on prominent railings and posters in some local shops. Car stickers were also very common. Nowadays, there is very little in evidence. If this is a barometer of feeling in the UK then the fund is in a sorry state.
avatar
mysterion

Posts : 361
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 17:33

@PeterMac wrote:
@diatribe wrote:
One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

I think it takes even more than that.
What you need is an Orwellian 1984 ability to believe two things simultaneously.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

You have to be able to believe that Gerry went in through the front door using his key AND that he went in through the Patio door which was unlocked.
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe Kate when she says the curtains were wide open AND when she says they were tightly shut
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe that you can sit by a pool sweating in brilliant sunshine, on a day when there was no sun and a cold wind was blowing.   And so on
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account

In fairness to Carter-Ruck (why, one asks ?) Adam Tudor is not a stupid man.  Mrs Matorrell is not a stupid woman.
Quite the contrary.
They both know perfectly well that the McCanns were not telling the truth on some occasions; that their clients were in fact lying.
They know perfectly well that Trafigura are deserving of opprobrium.
But they are paid good money to ensure that this is never tested in a court, by 'fudging' the issues with procedural points.
They boast openly about this on their web site.
They are brilliant at what they do.

You, the people of the UK, somewhere down the line, allowed these procedural points to enter your legal system; no one else did that

Why? In order for these points to be raised in attack or defense, why else?

So why blame anyone making a living by raising them, successfully or otherwise?

If CR are doing something illegal they will be disbarred

So, whereas some of their actions may be judged unpleasant or immoral by some (or by many) they are not illegal until proven to be so in a disciplinary tribunal or court of law

If you don't like this: change the law!

Please understand I'm not saying this in order to be unpleasant or to ruffle someones feathers. The above is central to most legal systems. Procedures to a greater or lesser extent guarantee that the law extends the same amount of protection to everyone. If you did away with procedural rules, you could very well end up depending on the good will (or bad will) of the judge, and who knows what kettle of fish you would then find yourself in
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe on 26.01.14 18:11

@Portia wrote:

You, the people of the UK, somewhere down the line, allowed these procedural points to enter your legal system; no one else did that

Why? In order for these points to be raised in attack or defense, why else?

So why blame anyone making a living by raising them, successfully or otherwise?

If CR are doing something illegal they will be disbarred

So, whereas some of their actions may be judged unpleasant or immoral by some (or by many) they are not illegal until proven to be so in a disciplinary tribunal or court of law

If you don't like this: change the law!

Please understand I'm not saying this in order to be unpleasant or to ruffle someones feathers. The above is central to most legal systems. Procedures to a greater or lesser extent guarantee that the law extends the same amount of protection to everyone. If you did away with procedural rules, you could very well end up depending on the good will (or bad will) of the judge, and who knows what kettle of fish you would then find yourself in
No disrespect, Portia, but if you think that ordinary British people have ,or for that matter ever have had any bearing or influence on legislation in the UK, then you are not only naive, but living on a planet in the same stratosphere as the Wizard of Oz. Why the people of this country are not even regarded as citizens, they're subjects.

Do you really suppose the proletariat would have sanctioned the 1998 Firearms Act, the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act, the 2003 Justice Act, The 2007 Welfare Reform Act, The 1991 Dangerous dogs Act etc. etc. etc. etc. had they had any choice in the matter. Laws are made by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers and tyrants who wish to ensure that they remain in their ivory towers whilst all others continue walking in the gutter. The only decent gesture any British gov. has ever made to the ordinary people of this sceptic isle where the sun rarely shines, albeit unwittingly, was to transport them to Australia in the 18th and 19th century.

NB. The British gov. wouldn't even arm its citizens in 1940 when the country was under imminent threat of invasion from the germans, the ruling elite who hadn't managed to get on the last boats to the US and Canada would obviously have preferred to have been under the jackboot of the nazis than have their own people armed. Its always far easier to subjugate a  disarmed, dumbed down nation than an educated and armed one. The easiest way to judge how democratic a country is, take a look at its gun laws, not to mention in the case of the Uk, its libel laws and surveillance cameras per capita.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by mysterion on 26.01.14 19:07

Which are the most democratic countries then?
avatar
mysterion

Posts : 361
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by diatribe on 26.01.14 19:22

@mysterion wrote:Which are the most democratic countries then?

I would have thought amongst the most undemocratic countries in the world would be Japan, Singapore, Great Britain, N Korea, China.
avatar
diatribe

Posts : 602
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Casey5 on 26.01.14 19:53

Sept 2007 George Galloway, MP for Respect party said:
"
The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.
Either way, the name McCann is now well and truly in the history books."

Full transcript:- http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/this-would-have-to-be-mother-of-all-injustices-955628
                      ------------
He wasn't far wrong was he?
avatar
Casey5

Posts : 347
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule on 26.01.14 20:02

@diatribe wrote:
@mysterion wrote:Which are the most democratic countries then?

I would have thought amongst the most undemocratic countries in the world would be Japan, Singapore, Great Britain, N Korea, China.
While it may be fair to say that GB is one of the least democratic countries in Europe, it cannot compete with any of the following in the non-democratic stakes as compiled by Wiki and as demonstrated by the fact that, as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:

"The worlds non-democratic or significantly non-democratic nations are classified in the categories below. See also Oppressive Regimes.

Monarchies With More Than Symbolic Power (Royal Dictatorships)

This section includes all non-symbolic monarchies. In many, there are no elections of any kind. In others, there is elected legislative input, but substantial executive and/or judicial power resides in a hereditary leader or very small hereditarily determined oligarchy.

Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Jordan
Morocco
Bhutan
Brunei
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Oman
Qatar
Swaziland
Nepal
Malaysia

Theocracies

Iran (Iran has functioning democratic institutions which are significantly constrained by religious leaders who have the authority to override most actions of the secular government and the free functioning of the electoral process).

Countries With One Party Governments

Cameroon
China
Cuba
North Korea
Laos
Vietnam
Syria

Countries With Dictators

For these purposes dictators are described as leaders who hold power not won or subject to removal in periodic democratic elections, who are not in power by virtue in inherited position or the backing of a broad based single party system. Concrete steps putting these countries firmly on the path to multi-party democracy have not been taken.

Central African Republic
Congo (Kinshasa)
Congo (Brazzaville)
Equatorial Guinea
Egypt
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Myanmar (aka Burma)
Kazakstan
Libya
Sudan
Turkmenistan

Countries With Transitional Governments

The nations have not put into place a full set of elected officials through a free and fair electoral process although they are in the process of doing so, are merely in the process of appearing to do so, or have established some sort of multi-party consultative body by appointment.

Afghanistan
Cambodia
Egypt
Eritrea
Haiti
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Liberia
Nepal
Russia
Kazakhstan"
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 20:20

@Casey5 wrote:Sept 2007 George Galloway, MP for Respect party said:
"
The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.
Either way, the name McCann is now well and truly in the history books."


Well said that man! That sums up my feelings entirely.

Now, if only I could decide which one was the truth....
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Okeydokey on 26.01.14 20:23

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
 

@ okeydokey "And yet - she declares them innocent....."
Err......where is the evidence for that ?  

@ Justice Hogg
"Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today."

It would be interesting to know who (apart from Mccanns) was/were included in the application.   IFGL or Mccanns lawyers ?
This might have an impact on the WOC.




The evidence that she is declaring them innocent while - REMEMBER! - they were still officially arguidos in Portugal:


Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. [Hogg accepts the McCann account - clearly she accepts that they do not know the whereabouts of Madeleine and are incapable of recovering her themselves. ] I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, [She clearly takes the side of the McCanns against Amaral and other PJ officers on this - she is dismissing the dogs' evidence and the DNA evidence] it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine [Clearly implies they cannot have any knowledge of the circumstances of her disappearance.] . Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. [This clearly identifies the McCanns as victims]

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.  [Since Hogg already accepts the McCanns' search is genuine, this is a further exoneration - it cannot refer to them. Its effect is heightened by the next "purple prose" passage. Since she knows the McCanns, she cannot be referring to the McCanns]

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court.

The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

okeydokey,
With due respects that's only your interpretations.
While it is fair to say Justice Hogg took things at face value which is inevitable since the Mccanns were neither arrested nor charged for any crime, it is not quite correct to say she "declares" them innocent.  If you've seen official declaration by Judge Hogg that the mccanns are innocent, please post it up.  Otherwise it is plain obfuscation on your part.

That's very silly. If you are saying that the statements in bold can be reconciled with a belief that the McCanns may have knowledge of the fate of their child, then you have to show why you think that, not just assert. I have explained why I think those statements all imply that persons other than the McCanns have knowledge of the fate of their child - and that is, given this was a statement in formal court, a declaration of innocence. For the avoidance of doubt, there was absolutely no requirement on Hogg to make any of those statements.  She had only to decide on whether the McCanns had the right to access the LP files, in line with the original court order requiring official agencies to aid the McCanns. She could have done that without any of those references.
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by notlongnow on 26.01.14 20:24

@sharonl wrote:

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Icon_camera_90x68
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Article-2460669-18BFAEA400000578-249_634x715
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 9 Icon_camera_90x68+7
New timeline: The Crimewatch special revealed that police were now looking at Madeleine's abduction as being at 10pm and not 9.15pm
This means Kate McCann may have missed the abduction of her daughter by a matter of minutes on May 3, 2007.
Last night several tourists who were in Praia da Luz that night have come forward, and crucially two have named the same person.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2rP8JtMXf 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


The bold bit is very interesting.
avatar
notlongnow

Posts : 482
Join date : 2013-10-16

Back to top Go down

Page 9 of 16 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 12 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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