Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by notlongnow 26.05.14 1:01

Woofer wrote:Out of all the things that TB has listed for a whitewash, its CM`s involvement that rings big bells for me.

This taken from another thread about CM:-

"In addition to that, two sources, one of them a documentary film-maker, have assured me that they are certain that Clarence Mitchell is an MI5 employee with connections at the very heart of MI5 - and in that role would know about all the skeletons in the cupboard of anyone who is anyone in this country...worth also noting here that Goncalo Amaral in his book specifically mentions that he (Amaral) attended a meeting at which at least one MI5 officer was present."

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1892-when-did-clarence-mitchell-arrange-for-the-mccanns-to-see-the-pope

PS - and if MI5 are involved it has got to be to protect someone extremely high profile, or to protect previous Government Enquiries that have covered up something.

If this is true surely this case would never have resurfaced,or are rm and rb more powerful than the uk government?

by **sharonl** 26.05.14 10:20

notlongnow wrote:
Woofer wrote:Out of all the things that TB has listed for a whitewash, its CM`s involvement that rings big bells for me.

This taken from another thread about CM:-

"In addition to that, two sources, one of them a documentary film-maker, have assured me that they are certain that Clarence Mitchell is an MI5 employee with connections at the very heart of MI5 - and in that role would know about all the skeletons in the cupboard of anyone who is anyone in this country...worth also noting here that Goncalo Amaral in his book specifically mentions that he (Amaral) attended a meeting at which at least one MI5 officer was present."

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1892-when-did-clarence-mitchell-arrange-for-the-mccanns-to-see-the-pope

PS - and if MI5 are involved it has got to be to protect someone extremely high profile, or to protect previous Government Enquiries that have covered up something.

If this is true surely this case would never have resurfaced,or are rm and rb more powerful than the uk government?

Lets not forget the reason that the review was set up in the first place - To pacify Rebekah Brooks and prevent her from putting whatever it is she knows about David Cameron and the Government, on her front pages.

That says it all for me, the review was set up to protect certain government officials, not to find Madeleine or protect the McCanns.

Also remember her text to David Cameron - "We are all in this together", what does that mean?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 10:35

sharonl wrote:
Let's not forget the reason that the review was set up in the first place - To pacify Rebekah Brooks and prevent her from putting whatever it is she knows about David Cameron and the Government, on her front pages.

That says it all for me, the review was set up to protect certain government officials, not to find Madeleine or protect the McCanns.

Also remember her text to David Cameron - "We are all in this together", what does that mean?

"We are all in this together" began when Clarence Mitchell's then boss, Matthew Freud, son-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, lent the future Prime Minister of this country his private jet so that he could fly to a meeting with his father-in-law on his Mediterranean yacht in the summer of 2009.

It was there that this deal was done:

Rupert Murdoch: "My papers [Times, Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World] will switch support from Labour to the Conservatives if you let me have BSkyB".

Cameron: "Done".

What happened?

1. All four papers changed to backing the Conservatives.

2. Murdoch got control of BSkyB.

And we mustn't forget another fascinating footnote to 'We are all in this together':

3. Two months after the Mediterranean yacht meeting, Cameron appointed Murdoch man Andy Coulson, former editor of Murdoch's the News of the World, as his Diretctor of Communications, and

4. The two men, Cameron and Coulson, chose Clarence Mitchell as their Deputy Director of Communications in March 2010, two months before the 2010 General Election.

by TheTruthWillOut 26.05.14 11:28

So like every wannabe MP/Prime Minster in forever he cut a deal for press support for his campaign but then later got leaned on/blackmailed to get a review of the MBM case.

Pathetic. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable.

This is probably what would be/is being covered up IMO, not who is responsible for MBM's disappearance. SY/OG are (now) tasked with separating the two issues, which no doubt is very, very difficult?

What a mess. banghead

by Mirage 26.05.14 11:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Let's not forget the reason that the review was set up in the first place - To pacify Rebekah Brooks and prevent her from putting whatever it is she knows about David Cameron and the Government, on her front pages.

That says it all for me, the review was set up to protect certain government officials, not to find Madeleine or protect the McCanns.

Also remember her text to David Cameron - "We are all in this together", what does that mean?
"We are all in this together" began when Clarence Mitchell's then boss, Matthew Freud, son-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, lent the future Prime Minister of this country his private jet so that he could fly to a meeting with his father-in-law on his Mediterranean yacht in the summer of 2009.

It was there that this deal was done:

Rupert Murdoch: "My papers [Times, Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World] will switch support from Labour to the Conservatives if you let me have BSkyB".

Cameron: "Done".

What happened?

1. All four papers changed to backing the Conservatives.

2. Murdoch got control of BSkyB.

And we mustn't forget another fascinating footnote to 'We are all in this together':

3. Two months after the Mediterranean yacht meeting, Cameron appointed Murdoch man Andy Coulson, former editor of Murdoch's the News of the World, as his Diretctor of Communications, and

4. The two men, Cameron and Coulson, chose Clarence Mitchell as their Deputy Director of Communications in March 2010, two months before the 2010 General Election.

Tony, I agree with your summation. In my opinion the epicentre of this cosy empire seems (in UK at least) to be situate in and around Chipping Norton. I now wonder what might transpire in terms of these established networks, given the dramatic changes to the political landscape overnight.

The political classes have been found out; the MSM too - in particular the BBC. Their politically-motivated and concerted attempts to hoodwink the public, deny them a voice and manipulate public opinion through Orwellian censorship has been exposed. As a result people appear to have woken up in numbers and are moving towards a different construct, using the Alternative Media to better inform themselves and question the status quo. Twitter and mass communications are the arch-enemies of subterfuge and hole-in-the-corner deals.

Interesting times. Perhaps they have come too late for Madeleine but at least the perfidy of the ancien regime will be prevented from replicating for the foreseeable future.

At least we may have the satisfaction of witnessing some rotting shoots wither and die on the vine.

by **tigger** 26.05.14 12:03

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So like every wannabe MP/Prime Minster in forever he cut a deal for press support for his campaign but then later got leaned on/blackmailed to get a review of the MBM case.

Pathetic. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable.

This is probably what would be/is being covered up IMO, not who is responsible for MBM's disappearance. SY/OG are (now) tasked with separating the two issues, which no doubt is very, very difficult?

What a mess.

Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell ( who used to write for Forum, a porn mag) and various PR outfits. No doubt Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 12:18

tigger wrote:
Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

REPLY: That's correct, Blair and Murdoch met in 1996, a year before Blair was elected, and that's when they did their deal. And in 1997 Murdoch's Sun was able to openly boast: 'It was the Sun wot won it'. However, both Thatcher and Major knew where media power lay and both made very sure that they talked regularly to Murdoch and his men. Who knows what deals might have been done, tigger, after all, Thatcher hob-nobbed with both Jimmy Savile and Rupert Murdoch (both holders of a Papal knighthood), and who knows what Thatcher knew about high-level paedophiles in Britain and what efforts she made to prevent anything too serious coming out?

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell (who used to write for Forum, a porn mag) and various PR outfits. No doubt Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

REPLY: Certainly, for whatever reason, Murdoch forced Cameron's hand over this £7.6 million-and-rising Operation Grange.

But Murdoch isn't 100% evil. It's very strongly rumoured that Murdoch, a bit of a Eurosceptic on the quiet, forced Blair in 2004 to say that he would hold a referendum on the proposed European Constitution.

He and the E.U.-powers neatly got out of that one by re-labelling the European Constitution the 'Treaty of Lisbon' (both documents are near-identical) and saying: You can't vote on it as it's 'only a Treaty'.

by TheTruthWillOut 26.05.14 12:23

tigger wrote:Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell ( who used to write for Forum, a porn mag) and various PR outfits. No doubt Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

For doing deals this despicable (IMO) you're probably right tigger.

The one thing I can't get my head around is why in the 2009/10 time frame when the vast majority of the public had forgotten about the case the Mcs (if they had knowledge of what happened) were banging on Alan Johnson's door for a review?

The only thing I can think of is they assumed Labour would win the upcoming election keeping them safe?

by Mirage 26.05.14 12:40

tigger wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:So like every wannabe MP/Prime Minster in forever he cut a deal for press support for his campaign but then later got leaned on/blackmailed to get a review of the MBM case.

Pathetic. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be laughable.

This is probably what would be/is being covered up IMO, not who is responsible for MBM's disappearance. SY/OG are (now) tasked with separating the two issues, which no doubt is very, very difficult?

What a mess.

Afaik this started with Blair, neither Thatcher nor Major did deals with the press.

Blair made a special trip to Australia to do the deal with Murdoch. New Labour was engineered by Mandelson, Campbell ( who used to write for Forum, a porn mag) and various PR outfits. No doubt Common Purpose was on board as well.

Don't forget Blair is godfather to Murdoch's youngest daughter, Cameron is tolerated by Murdoch but doesn't get half the support Blair had. As the SY review demonstrates.

That's right tigger. But of course Blair has blotted his copy book by allegedly visiting Wendi Deng Murdoch at the family ranch. Certainly, some of Ms Deng's writings have come to light in the aftermath to be widely published in the press. WDM eh. Re-arrange the letters into a familiar farago. Oh, the irony.

To my mind there were, and remain, repercussions in the political world. Murdoch allegedly refused to take calls from Blair in the aftermath, which indicates that TB is always anxious to have his wheels re-greased from time to time and is accustomed to making pit stops for the purpose. In any event Murdoch turned against Liebor big time, even before the ranch visits IIRC. Gordon Brown allegedly threatened to destroy the Sun (as soon as he was done with saving the world, of course), so old allegiances rapidly broke down. And, yes, I am also sure CP is at the bottom of a lot of things, tigger. I look forward to the public at large being de-mystified on this score in due course.

My concern is that everyone's eye is on the traditional political bearpit but, due to gradual politicising of the MET by Blair the country may yet face an unexpected dynamic in the future. We have had a hint of it in Plebgate.

.

by HelenMeg 26.05.14 13:17

Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

by HelenMeg 26.05.14 13:25

and Clarence Mitchell :

BBC website profile:
Clarence Mitchell is back in front of the camera again - this time as the spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of missing four-year-old Madeleine. Former colleague Laurie Margolis recalls his time as a BBC journalist.
My first memories of Clarence were when he joined the BBC as a regional reporter in Leeds.

Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash - Page 31 _44134566_mitchell_pa203b

Clarence Mitchell worked on several high-profile cases as a reporter

Then he made it down to London, first on Breakfast News, then as one of the team of reporters who worked for the main news bulletins on national TV and radio.
I was another in that reporter pool in the early 1990s, and it was a difficult time for many of us, because the BBC bosses of that era became obsessed with specialists, people who may well have known their topic, but were often poor at turning that into watchable TV News.
General reporters like Clarence were highly skilled TV journalists, able to get their heads round any subject at short notice. But such people were out of fashion, and I think Clarence found it frustrating.
Nevertheless, he became a major figure in several big domestic stories.
He was closely involved with the Fred and Rosemary West case, where a murderous couple had killed young girls and buried the bodies under their patio in Gloucester.
Royal coverage
He was one of the first reporters to arrive at Gowan Avenue, Fulham in south west London, when the immensely popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead in a murder many feel has never been satisfactorily explained.
And more recently, in a story he worked on right up to the day he left the BBC, Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002. The case has never been solved.
Towards the end of his BBC career Clarence became heavily used on royal stories. He was deeply involved in coverage of the post-Diana era and the death of the Queen Mother.
Clarence was also a presenter on various BBC news programmes, and may have been looking to make that the main plank of his career.
But the presenting world is a precarious and capricious one, and he never quite made it.
One night, when I was working through the night, Clarence was presenting hourly bulletins on BBC News 24.
He did the 1am, and the 2am, but at 3am a slightly dishevelled looking producer appeared doing the news. It turned out Clarence had closed his eyes, and had slept through the 3am programme.
Madeleine maelstrom
Clarence left the BBC quite suddenly, making a move into the Labour government as director of its Media Monitoring Unit. His salary was widely reported to be £70,000 a year.

He was a failed presenter at the BBC with a lot of contacts - at the end of his BBC career he was used on the royal stories - suddenly left to work within Labour government and then
" as the Madeleine McCann story exploded this summer, it became clear that a high level of control and organisation would be needed to cope with the media maelstrom.
Clarence was plucked from his job, and sent out to handle the media, rather than be part of the media, on a massive crime story. Now he's left his government job and gone in with the McCanns full-time."

In my opinion, Clarence Mitchell took various opportunities as they arose - made a name for himself as PR for Madeleine case, (he likes presenting and having his face in the limelight). He is now standiong for conservative party so has switch alliances yet again- ....

He may have acquired some sort of power through what he knows about both parties - but in my opinion he appears to switch alliances as opportunities come along and he sees how it can benefit him. No more no less.

by Woofer 26.05.14 13:38

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I`ve never understood this either - the idea that it was to sell more papers doesn`t ring true to me.

Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely) she helped Kate get what she wanted, or

Was it because she knew the McCanns were bluffing about wanting a review and called their bluff, or

Was it because RB was instructed by RM to do so, but why? RB must realise the Mcs are involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

by **PeterMac** 26.05.14 13:53

[quote="Woofer"]
Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely)
/quote]
NO.
Born Rebekah Mary Wade on May 27, 1968 in Warrington, Cheshire, Brooks attended Appleton Hall County Grammar School.
Kate - Michelle and I both passed the Eleven-Plus and went on together to Everton Valley (Notre Dame Collegiate School)

by Woofer 26.05.14 14:48

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely)
/quote]
NO.
Born Rebekah Mary Wade on May 27, 1968 in Warrington, Cheshire, Brooks attended Appleton Hall County Grammar School.
Kate - Michelle and I both passed the Eleven-Plus and went on together to Everton Valley (Notre Dame Collegiate School)

ok - 20 miles separating them.

by canada12 26.05.14 15:01

I too wonder why the McCanns wanted a review so badly. They could have quietly disappeared and that would have been the end of it.

Did they think the press generated by a review would result in more money for the Fund? Was there a bigger plan in the works, that for some reason or reasons did not play out? Did they think that a review would result in their ultimate exoneration? Did they think it would lead to a reopening of the investigation or is this an unforseen complication?

by Woofer 26.05.14 15:12

This question plagues me and I can only think it was to find Maddie`s body without being accused of disappearing her. Maybe some other organisation took her dead body. An accident happened, the McCanns called in favours, help was given by government SS who took Maddie`s body as a security - they want to know where her body is. It would explain their continued pushing and they could state with all honesty they are still searching for her.

by juliet 26.05.14 15:22

I have always thought it impossible that the McCanns weren't hacked by the News of the World. Everyone else in the news at that time was. I don't know if Rebecca Brooks had the brains or cunning to start ordering Cameron around re a review. But Murdoch certainly had - and still has. Now and then, with Wendy Murphy and the Exton story and maybe the non-retracted " murdered" he lobs a little hand grenade into the mix.

by 1soapy 26.05.14 15:58

I don’t see how or why the McCann’s would NOT ask for a review or investigation. Why?

Others (parents in other cases that is) have campaigned for years (without success). No need to think they would be any more successful, especially if they don’t put too much effort into it (GA said all they needed to do was ask the PJ).

Especially being (one time) suspects, it would be odd if they did not campaign. Do you not think it would be MORE odd to quietly forget about it (in the eyes of the public)? They have to seem to be still looking and wanting help to do so. Superficially, it might be better to quietly forget it all, but the public interest forbade or negated that.

Money.

Power and confidence over authorities to show that even with demands (to find the truth), it will not be found.

Fame?

IMO

by Guest 26.05.14 16:06

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I think the McCanns were squealing 'review' with tongue firmly in cheek never dreaming it would come to fruition because of the knowledge they held pertaining to the political cover-up in the first place. They thought they were on rock solid ground. They could publicly request what which would be expected of them as desperate parents thus generating a re-focus on the fund (at that time they were admitting they needed more money to continue an independent search as the nasty governments of Portugal and the UK had done nothing proactively to find Madeleine for two years) whilst secure in the knowledge their request had no chance of being granted.

I think Brooks called their bluff. I'm not sure what her motives were but I am convinced she, like most of the media, knows what really happened.

I've asked this a few times and it's a purely hypothetical question: "If the truth of what happened in a major case, after years of corruption and cover-up designed to mislead the people, was finally brought to the public as a result of evidence obtained by phone hacking, would that public view phone hacking in a more tolerant light? A necessary evil to a justifiable end?"

I am not insinuating for one minute that hacking did take place. I do find it noteworthy that apparently the only important people that definitely weren't hacked were the McCanns.

by ultimaThule 26.05.14 16:51

1soapy wrote:I don’t see how or why the McCann’s would NOT ask for a review or investigation. Why?

Others (parents in other cases that is) have campaigned for years (without success). No need to think they would be any more successful, especially if they don’t put too much effort into it (GA said all they needed to do was ask the PJ).

Especially being (one time) suspects, it would be odd if they did not campaign. Do you not think it would be MORE odd to quietly forget about it (in the eyes of the public)? They have to seem to be still looking and wanting help to do so. Superficially, it might be better to quietly forget it all, but the public interest forbade or negated that.

Money.

Power and confidence over authorities to show that even with demands (to find the truth), it will not be found.

Fame?

IMO

I agree, soapy. In order to maintain that they were the wholly innocent bereft parents of an abducted child, it was necessary for the McCanns to claim that they wanted the PJ to re-open the case although, of course, they could have achieved this for the price of a stamp and without any publicity whatsoever.

It was also necessary for them to ask for a review to be held in the UK in the hope that they would gain access to all of the information that the PJ and Leciestershire police held at that time.

Imo both of the McCanns are attention seekers of the 'look at me, aren't I wonderful' type and much as they profess not to like the limelight, they're addicted to it. Also imo. Gerry's always wanted to make a name for himself and achieve worldwide recognition but, such is his distinctly average intellect, he's only managed to become famous for being infamous and his discontent with this state of affairs is becoming apparent on his features.

Botox and hair dye have their limitations and it seems to me that whatever Faustian pact the wee one made with the devil clearly didn't include a portrait which would dissipate in a locked room to which only he had access.

by 1soapy 26.05.14 16:59

I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

by HelenMeg 26.05.14 17:37

Dee Coy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I think the McCanns were squealing 'review' with tongue firmly in cheek never dreaming it would come to fruition because of the knowledge they held pertaining to the political cover-up in the first place. They thought they were on rock solid ground. They could publicly request what which would be expected of them as desperate parents thus generating a re-focus on the fund (at that time they were admitting they needed more money to continue an independent search as the nasty governments of Portugal and the UK had done nothing proactively to find Madeleine for two years) whilst secure in the knowledge their request had no chance of being granted.

I think Brooks called their bluff. I'm not sure what her motives were but I am convinced she, like most of the media, knows what really happened.

I've asked this a few times and it's a purely hypothetical question: "If the truth of what happened in a major case, after years of corruption and cover-up designed to mislead the people, was finally brought to the public as a result of evidence obtained by phone hacking, would that public view phone hacking in a more tolerant light? A necessary evil to a justifiable end?"

I am not insinuating for one minute that hacking did take place. I do find it noteworthy that apparently the only important people that definitely weren't hacked were the McCanns.

I agree that the Mc Canns may have been vocal about wanting a review in the knowledge that it would never happen. If RB pushed for a review (and I'm not aware of how she went about this?) but it was perhaps either because 1. she believed the Mc Canns were innocent and genuinely wished to help 2. She wanted a review knowing it would lead to selling endless newspapers 3. She had it in for someone - and re-opening the case would lead to whoever was being protected being outed...related to Labour party.

What other motives would there be?

by 1soapy 26.05.14 17:45

RB knew the truth, e.g. from hacking, but being naughty, (so could not go to the police with it or prove anything), thought she had a great paper selling opportunity to a long lead up to exposing the truth somehow as the case turns from huge support for the McCanns to the opposite.

by ultimaThule 26.05.14 17:49

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

I have no doubt that Rebekah Brooks was instrumental in facilitating the McCanns' request for a UK-based review and that she personally made a case to convince David Cameron that it should take place, but I very much doubt that it was her intention for any such review to confine itself to exonerating them from any complicity in their eldest daughter's disappearance.

It occurs to me that those who claim that RB wields enormous power over policitians and the like may be best placed to explain why she was unable to spare herself, her spouse, and others, the ignominy and the expense of appearing as defendants at the Old Bailey in a time-consuming trial which is yet to conclude. .

by Guest 26.05.14 17:52

ultimaThule wrote:
1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

I have no doubt that Rebekah Brooks was instrumental in facilitating the McCanns' request for a UK-based review and that she personally made a case to convince David Cameron that it should take place, but I very much doubt that it was her intention for any such review to confine itself to exonerating them from any complicity in their eldest daughter's disappearance.

It occurs to me that those who claim that RB wields enormous power over policitians and the like may be best placed to explain why she was unable to spare herself, her spouse, and others, the ignominy and the expense of appearing as defendants at the Old Bailey in a time-consuming trial which is yet to conclude. .

Good point. yes