Re: ExclusivePix - more Met Police photos, from the team that's always on hand to snap what the Met orders them to snap

by Angelique 11.05.14 8:15

"1. Great - the Met have thought of everything, it's good to see them making sure we can see them all hard at work on the job"

I voted the above.

Not because I believe for one moment that they are "on the job" at all but in a sarcastic way because - yes they have thought of everyting to show the UK that this is a "real investigation" but I very much doubt it as I unfortunately think it will result in a whitewash. But like Tony I shall be over the moon if somehow SY manage to show a clean pair of heels and produce a result that contains the Truth.

If we remember at the beginning when this was a Review and Cameron received "the Letter" and marching orders from Rebekah. The Met was facing cuts and possible early retirement of officers. It fitted nicely in if those that were facing redundancy could be moved to a separate investigation. In fact, I think it was serendipity both things could be dealt with at once. Interest in the case was rising and men would be walking. It also depends on what they want the final outcome to be as to what/who/how the result of the Review now Investigation is finally presented. We won't know this till it happens as we don"t know what their aim was in the first place.

I agree and have mentioned this before a while ago that the PJ re-opened the case simply because they received a request from SY - how else can the deal with those requests.

by **sharonl** 11.05.14 9:59

Here we have the UK top police force carrying out a review of a missing child case and as part of the review they need to go to Praia Da Luz where the child disappeared from.

I can fully understand if the media had pursued them in the hope of getting a story and some photographs, even though they may have asked not to, but I cannot understand why anyone would need to hire an expensive firm of photographers to join them for a few photographs that merely tell us merely that they were in Praia da Luz at some time, and that they stopped for lunch.

You wouldn't expect the Met to hire these photographers, apart from being outside their normal course of duties, it would be totally un-professional.

The media would have had their own photographers and many more photographs would have been taken.

Were they hired by team McCann? That would be highly unlikely if they photographed any work being carried out considering that they are now looking for a body, but they have only photographed the Met's presence in Praia Da Luz and nothing else.

So who did hire Exclusive Pix?
Who paid them?
What was the reason for the photographs?

The McCanns' have always insisted that Madeleine has come to no harm and that they believe she is alive and findable, but all of a sudden NSY are looking for a body and at the same time the McCanns have changed their tune, they are now saying that they need to know if Madeleine is alive or not.

Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review? With an election coming up and all the adverse publicity on the internet that the Government and the McCanns didn't bargain for it would hardly be surprising. It is also strange that we have this apparent change of tune just a few days after Max Clifford is convicted. Have the Government said enough is enough, were not playing the McCann game anymore or is this another botched attempt to convince us of the McCanns innocence?

Or could it be that they are aware that the PJ have found something? Are the McCanns getting in first, proclaiming their innocence by saying that "we need to know" and the met avoiding embarrassment by being seen to follow a more credible line of inquiry?

by Guest 11.05.14 10:00

lj wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Mirage wrote:

One thought that struck me today watching Cameron on his tour: he has to find some ammo against the UKIP surge. What better timing to show EU police cooperating to solve cross border crimes?

That's exactly what I was thinking when I was bored at work last night.

Regarding Tony's views on SY, I am minded to think of that expression that my mother always used - "If you can't find anything nice to say about somebody, then say nothing at all". Although I fear that he would be rendered mute....
I suspect she said that when you were ranting about a school mate.
What would you mother say about an organisation that should be the most trusted in society, but has proven time and again not to be reliable. A group who has spilled a fortune with the only thing they have to show for it is how they discredited another police force.

I am very happy to read Tony's warnings against too great enthusiasm. This "another brilliant move from SY, to fool who we think are the suspects".

Read Pat Brown's blog, should she say nothing too?

My mother reads the Daily Mirror - enough said!

I fear, lj, that you took my post too seriously. Although it's my fault really as I shouldn't make light of such a serious subject.

After the comments here, I'm not reading Pat Brown until I am sure that all the sharp objects in the house have been well hidden.

by Guest 11.05.14 10:05

sharonl wrote:
Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review?

That's what I'm sort of hoping - that the "help the parents" part of the review has been exhausted and that we have unofficially moved into the "solve the crime" stage.

I now await a healthy injection of patented Bennett brand scepticism!

by Liz Eagles 11.05.14 14:06

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review?

That's what I'm sort of hoping - that the "help the parents" part of the review has been exhausted and that we have unofficially moved into the "solve the crime" stage.

I now await a healthy injection of patented Bennett brand scepticism!

Clay, you seem to have taken a few side swipes at Tony Bennett since your return to the forum.

Why don't you just spit out what you have to say?

by **tigger** 11.05.14 14:28

aquila wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review?

That's what I'm sort of hoping - that the "help the parents" part of the review has been exhausted and that we have unofficially moved into the "solve the crime" stage.

I now await a healthy injection of patented Bennett brand scepticism!
Clay, you seem to have taken a few side swipes at Tony Bennett since your return to the forum.

Why don't you just spit out what you have to say?

I wouldn't call it a side swipe at all. Looks to me like a jocular remark about somebody whose opinion you may not share.
Certainly, if it had been directed at me, I would not mind at all and take the remark in the way it was intended. A friendly jest.

by Liz Eagles 11.05.14 14:33

tigger wrote:
aquila wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review?

That's what I'm sort of hoping - that the "help the parents" part of the review has been exhausted and that we have unofficially moved into the "solve the crime" stage.

I now await a healthy injection of patented Bennett brand scepticism!
Clay, you seem to have taken a few side swipes at Tony Bennett since your return to the forum.

Why don't you just spit out what you have to say?

I wouldn't call it a side swipe at all. Looks to me like a jocular remark about somebody whose opinion you may not share.
Certainly, if it had been directed at me, I would not mind at all and take the remark in the way it was intended. A friendly jest.

I stand corrected.

by lj 11.05.14 16:39

Atomic Peanut wrote:
lj wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?

Come on, do some reading it's all over the place.
I have done plenty of reading since May 2007. As I explained above, two of the potential whitewash conclusions suggested by ChippyM don't explain why a supposedly shelved case was voluntarily resurrected by NSY, and the other wouldn't hold water because there would be no evidence against the chosen patsy.

Apparently you missed the relevant parts. ChippyM is not the only one posting here. There have been several constructions suggested. You might not agree with them, that's OK.

BTW the case was shelved by the PJ. SY never had a case.

Maybe read the blog from Pat Brown.

by lj 11.05.14 16:43

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
lj wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Mirage wrote:

One thought that struck me today watching Cameron on his tour: he has to find some ammo against the UKIP surge. What better timing to show EU police cooperating to solve cross border crimes?

That's exactly what I was thinking when I was bored at work last night.

Regarding Tony's views on SY, I am minded to think of that expression that my mother always used - "If you can't find anything nice to say about somebody, then say nothing at all". Although I fear that he would be rendered mute....
I suspect she said that when you were ranting about a school mate.
What would you mother say about an organisation that should be the most trusted in society, but has proven time and again not to be reliable. A group who has spilled a fortune with the only thing they have to show for it is how they discredited another police force.

I am very happy to read Tony's warnings against too great enthusiasm. This "another brilliant move from SY, to fool who we think are the suspects".

Read Pat Brown's blog, should she say nothing too?

My mother reads the Daily Mirror - enough said!

I fear, lj, that you took my post too seriously. Although it's my fault really as I shouldn't make light of such a serious subject.

After the comments here, I'm not reading Pat Brown until I am sure that all the sharp objects in the house have been well hidden.

Sorry Clay, I should have gotten that one. I just sometimes get fed up with the suggestion that anyone, who does not believe SY is playing an "open mind fair game" is almost betraying the cause.

by lj 11.05.14 16:46

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Could it be that the Government are back peddling with their support for the McCanns and what was intended to be a whitewash is now a proper review?

That's what I'm sort of hoping - that the "help the parents" part of the review has been exhausted and that we have unofficially moved into the "solve the crime" stage.

I now await a healthy injection of patented Bennett brand scepticism!

That I could imagine! I just said on another thread that I could imagine SY to change course and go after the pathetic parents, just to shut them up.

Unless they are masochists of course.

by aiyoyo 11.05.14 17:01

ShuBob wrote:Sixmillionquid, it would have made things worse had he suddenly said "we don't give running commentaries" while he was busy briefing the press.

IMO, as explained before, he can very easily get himself out of his previous declarations.

What previous declarations and how ?

As in breaking news: "Kate & Gerry McCann along with their holiday friends arrested for this and that......"

How would Redwood explain his earlier "not persons of interest" statement ?

by plebgate 11.05.14 17:10

possibly by saying that had they stated that they were persons of interest the MSM would have gone bananas and that by making the earlier statement it saved any potentially inaccurate stories being published which might jeopardise any possible future police case???????

by Woofer 11.05.14 18:15

aiyoyo wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Sixmillionquid, it would have made things worse had he suddenly said "we don't give running commentaries" while he was busy briefing the press.

IMO, as explained before, he can very easily get himself out of his previous declarations.

What previous declarations and how ?

As in breaking news: "Kate & Gerry McCann along with their holiday friends arrested for this and that......"

How would Redwood explain his earlier "not persons of interest" statement ?

Just by saying they were initially.

ExclusivePix - more Met Police photos, from the team that's always on hand to snap what the Met orders them to snap

Those ExclusivePix photos of Operation Grange at work in Portugal...