Re: Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

by TozerDerry 25.05.14 19:39

daffodil wrote:
TozerDerry wrote:
daffodil wrote:
PM I somehow think you have that list in the wrong order

@ Mirage - Oh yes, forgot priests.

@ TozerDerry - Mori polls are something else I would not trust
What reason would you have to disgust a simple veracity poll. If that is not evidence, what is?

I do have the right to post my own opinion. I do not consider the opinion of 1,828 people qualifying enough to be a general consensus of public opinion considering the population of England and Wales (sorry I cannot quote the precise population at present nor the percentage this would represent). A poll of a small number of people is not enough IMO for accurate assessment.

Poll for the Police Federatio
Published:20 May 2014
Fieldwork:9 - 12 May 2014
Theme:Crime & Policing
Keywords:Crime, Police, Trade Unions
(Click on keywords to find related Research)
The Police Federation today published its results from an online survey on public perceptions of the police force in England and Wales. The Ipsos MORI poll of 1,828 people, covers confidence in the police force, perceptions of public safety and the ability of the police to do a good job.

Of course you have the right to your own opinion. I just asked you why you distrusted MORI pols. Something over a thousand well chosen people has a mathematical confidence interval of plus or minus three per cent- not my opinion but scientific fact. Polls called by the organisation being polled about are always more doubtful than multi- issue ones.

Most people here seem to distrust the police- more than 37%!

by Atomic Peanut 25.05.14 19:49

Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?

Thank you for leaping to my defence, russiandoll. I was rather surprised that my motives were questioned just because I mentioned several times in my first 20 posts that there is no evidence of a whitewash. "Several" times because I was waiting for a sound reason why that should be so. I repeated myself because I wanted to test the whitewash theory with everybody who mentioned it, in the hope that they would be able to convince me. Nobody has.

Some have tried, but referring to a handful of past cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice doesn't indicate that the whole of NSY is permanently corrupt. In particular, it doesn't show that the 37 NSY staff working on the MM case are corrupt.

So, far from being in the wrong myself because I have suggested "without proof" that there is no evidence of a whitewash, it's up to those who believe in the whitewash theory to provide strong (not circumstancial) evidence that there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

The question that is never addressed is this: since the case was shelved by the PJ in 2008, NSY had apparently had no involvement with it. So why would the UK government and/or NSY re-open it, put it all back into the full glare of public scrutiny for nearly 3 years, spending millions in the process, just to close it again? For them it was never officially open in the first place.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

by The Rooster 25.05.14 20:17

Well said Peanut.

by ShuBob 25.05.14 20:47

The Rooster wrote:Well said Peanut.

Seconded.

by Guest 25.05.14 20:50

Great post atomic peanut.

by plebgate 25.05.14 21:08

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?
Thank you for leaping to my defence, russiandoll. I was rather surprised that my motives were questioned just because I mentioned several times in my first 20 posts that there is no evidence of a whitewash. "Several" times because I was waiting for a sound reason why that should be so. I repeated myself because I wanted to test the whitewash theory with everybody who mentioned it, in the hope that they would be able to convince me. Nobody has.

Some have tried, but referring to a handful of past cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice doesn't indicate that the whole of NSY is permanently corrupt. In particular, it doesn't show that the 37 NSY staff working on the MM case are corrupt.

So, far from being in the wrong myself because I have suggested "without proof" that there is no evidence of a whitewash, it's up to those who believe in the whitewash theory to provide strong (not circumstancial) evidence that there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

The question that is never addressed is this: since the case was shelved by the PJ in 2008, NSY had apparently had no involvement with it. So why would the UK government and/or NSY re-open it, put it all back into the full glare of public scrutiny for nearly 3 years, spending millions in the process, just to close it again? For them it was never officially open in the first place.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

Re. pink highlighting (mine) - just a possibility, not saying that this is so, but (possibily) because (as informed via ? Joana's website) the Port. police have in fact not stopped processing info. passed to them, even though the case has been shelved - what better way to keep in the know than to give 10 million pounds of taxpayers money to stay in the loop?

IIRC NSY did not want to get involved, Cameron told them it was going to happen and there was even a question raised in House of Commons as to whether there should be "political interference" in this case, (can't remember MPs name), but a google search should turn something up.

Turns out that Cameron's good friend Becky (she who arranged for Cameron to borrow a retired police horse) - had persuaded him to get involved. Either that or her newspaper would make sure that Teresa May made headlines every day for a week (sumat like that). We have never been told exactly what the headlines would say - at least not to my knowledge.

Funny old world innit.

by Nina 25.05.14 21:29

margaret wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
MarleneP wrote:Can anyone still remember (from the 3A forum) that a fabric/sheet was mentioned, which was found in a secluded house? It was a specially patterned cloth and it was seen in connection with Madeleine.

Yes, a metal sheet, hence they knew she was kept in a coldish place.
They knew more than we think.....just hope MET follow them through.

No, wasn't it a remote farm building where a towel with an Aztec print was found. The same towels were also used at the ocean club. ETA, weren't they?

A bit like the aztec towel on the back of the chair, taken from

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

http://prntscr.com/3mjezo

by SixMillionQuid 25.05.14 21:38

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

Really!? How can the case be closed on unsatisfactory circumstances?

You're happy with the progress made so far? They have'nt identified the man wearing the T-shirt with the 'O' yet.

by Woofer 25.05.14 21:50

daffodil wrote:[quote="Woofer
.... and vicars - I had a relationship with one once and he had no morals at all yet still held forth in the pulpit on a Sunday and of course just loved to use his dog collar for privileges. I`ll say no more.

It may be OT but you cannot leave us wondering Woofer.[/quote]

big grin

I`ll just say I dumped him, cos he was 3 timing me. The rest is censored

- terrible man.

by Woofer 25.05.14 22:07

Nina wrote:
margaret wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
MarleneP wrote:Can anyone still remember (from the 3A forum) that a fabric/sheet was mentioned, which was found in a secluded house? It was a specially patterned cloth and it was seen in connection with Madeleine.

Yes, a metal sheet, hence they knew she was kept in a coldish place.
They knew more than we think.....just hope MET follow them through.

No, wasn't it a remote farm building where a towel with an Aztec print was found. The same towels were also used at the ocean club. ETA, weren't they?
A bit like the aztec towel on the back of the chair, taken from

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

http://prntscr.com/3mjezo

Can anyone confirm that towel was the general hand-out towel from the OC or was it the Mcs own towel? They obviously liked the Aztec design as shown by their living room carpet.

by Nina 25.05.14 22:29

Woofer wrote:
Nina wrote:
margaret wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
MarleneP wrote:Can anyone still remember (from the 3A forum) that a fabric/sheet was mentioned, which was found in a secluded house? It was a specially patterned cloth and it was seen in connection with Madeleine.

Yes, a metal sheet, hence they knew she was kept in a coldish place.
They knew more than we think.....just hope MET follow them through.

No, wasn't it a remote farm building where a towel with an Aztec print was found. The same towels were also used at the ocean club. ETA, weren't they?
A bit like the aztec towel on the back of the chair, taken from

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

http://prntscr.com/3mjezo
Can anyone confirm that towel was the general hand-out towel from the OC or was it the Mcs own towel? They obviously liked the Aztec design as shown by their living room carpet.

I think the apartment towels were white, there is a PJ photograph with what looks like a pile of towels over either a chair, or even a radiator.
The same link as above, but obviously a pile of either towels or sheets,

http://prntscr.com/3mk91r

by petunia 25.05.14 22:38

Funny world indeed Plebgate..I will never understand why call me "Dave" allowed one of his most important and senior members of government to be degraded by a newspaper editor'with threats to put her on the front page of her newspaper for a week.At the leveson inquiry Teresa May EVEN denied it was true,my guess is she was furious..I have voted most of my life but not for the last 3 years or so cos politics now is all about PR PR they all p@ss in the same pot imo..

by Poppyfox 25.05.14 22:43

Hi I really want to believe that OG and PJ are quietly working together. I don't think it will be a white wash as it's too big a case now and the eyes of the world are watching. I was also emboldened by Teresa May's speech to the police. IMHO both police forces know certain parents are guilty but need hard evidence and hopefully DNA. I think that one of the Tapas have talked and it's on this that they're basing the search on. Maybe it's not the body but other items - blue bag, cleaning cloth etc. I IMHO don't think they will find poor MBMs body as Mr seems very confident it will never be found. As a parent I find Mr&Mrs disgusting narcissists who don't seem to care about their children. I feel extremely sorry for the twins knowing that the police were now searching for their sister's body as well as living with their evil conniving parents. All in my own opinion new

by Woofer 25.05.14 22:43

Nina wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Nina wrote:
margaret wrote:
No, wasn't it a remote farm building where a towel with an Aztec print was found. The same towels were also used at the ocean club. ETA, weren't they?
A bit like the aztec towel on the back of the chair, taken from

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

http://prntscr.com/3mjezo
Can anyone confirm that towel was the general hand-out towel from the OC or was it the Mcs own towel? They obviously liked the Aztec design as shown by their living room carpet.
I think the apartment towels were white, there is a PJ photograph with what looks like a pile of towels over either a chair, or even a radiator.
The same link as above, but obviously a pile of either towels or sheets,

http://prntscr.com/3mk91r

Thanks Nina - was it this pic? The white towels being draped over the chair in the right of the pic. They certainly look like towels.

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 19 01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_20_small1

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 19 01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_20_small1

by Mirage 25.05.14 22:55

petunia wrote:Funny world indeed Plebgate..I will never understand why call me "Dave" allowed one of his most important and senior members of government to be degraded by a newspaper editor'with threats to put her on the front page of her newspaper for a week.At the leveson inquiry Teresa May EVEN denied it was true,my guess is she was furious..I have voted most of my life but not for the last 3 years or so cos politics now is all about PR PR they all p@ss in the same pot imo..

Call me Dave's face has changed - got very hard indeed. I don't believe he had that look in the early days. There was a lovely photo I recall of him looking at his little disabled son in a very tender way.

The same thing seems to happen to all of them when they walk through that door at No 10. Disconnected, robotic and hard as nails. The image I have when I think of Call me Dave now is the one when Tom Watson stood up in the Commons in PMQs and confronted him about the P-ring that led straight to No 10.

That reminds me, what happened to that guy in No 10 tasked with eradicating this terrible stuff for the govt? Last I heard he was up on charges of downloading the material he was supposed to be investigating. All gone quiet with that one.

As you say, Petunia and Plebgate, a funny old world.

by Hongkong Phooey 25.05.14 22:59

Woofer wrote:
Nina wrote:
margaret wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
MarleneP wrote:Can anyone still remember (from the 3A forum) that a fabric/sheet was mentioned, which was found in a secluded house? It was a specially patterned cloth and it was seen in connection with Madeleine.

Yes, a metal sheet, hence they knew she was kept in a coldish place.
They knew more than we think.....just hope MET follow them through.

No, wasn't it a remote farm building where a towel with an Aztec print was found. The same towels were also used at the ocean club. ETA, weren't they?
A bit like the aztec towel on the back of the chair, taken from

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

http://prntscr.com/3mjezo
Can anyone confirm that towel was the general hand-out towel from the OC or was it the Mcs own towel? They obviously liked the Aztec design as shown by their living room carpet.

I don't think the towel was ever attributed to the McCanns can't see how we would have missed them being questioned I.e. please explain why your towel was found in an abandoned barn miles away from PDL.

by maebee 25.05.14 23:15

. wrote:Atomic Peanut
Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?
Thank you for leaping to my defence, russiandoll. I was rather surprised that my motives were questioned just because I mentioned several times in my first 20 posts that there is no evidence of a whitewash. "Several" times because I was waiting for a sound reason why that should be so. I repeated myself because I wanted to test the whitewash theory with everybody who mentioned it, in the hope that they would be able to convince me. Nobody has.

Some have tried, but referring to a handful of past cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice doesn't indicate that the whole of NSY is permanently corrupt. In particular, it doesn't show that the 37 NSY staff working on the MM case are corrupt.

So, far from being in the wrong myself because I have suggested "without proof" that there is no evidence of a whitewash, it's up to those who believe in the whitewash theory to provide strong (not circumstancial) evidence that there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

The question that is never addressed is this: since the case was shelved by the PJ in 2008, NSY had apparently had no involvement with it. So why would the UK government and/or NSY re-open it, put it all back into the full glare of public scrutiny for nearly 3 years, spending millions in the process, just to close it again? For them it was never officially open in the first place.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

Great post Peanut. Even if SY wanted to whitewash this case, it is impossible. 37 Detectives all in the know (they have to be) + a good percentage of those 37 will have spoken to wives and girlfriends. It would only take one of these to speak. Add in that there is always the possibility that one or more of the T9 will grow a pair at some stage in the future and sing. A WW is a risk too far, imo. The truth is coming.

by petunia 25.05.14 23:22

I am not going with whitewash either Poppyfox..it seems there is a news blackout.. since the met update earlier this week..news channels ran with it for a couple of hours on the day but nothing since..no stories been fed to the newspapers by a family source etc etc, imo this case is going to conclude by the end of this year..

by Hongkong Phooey 25.05.14 23:33

maebee wrote:

. wrote:Atomic Peanut
Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?
Thank you for leaping to my defence, russiandoll. I was rather surprised that my motives were questioned just because I mentioned several times in my first 20 posts that there is no evidence of a whitewash. "Several" times because I was waiting for a sound reason why that should be so. I repeated myself because I wanted to test the whitewash theory with everybody who mentioned it, in the hope that they would be able to convince me. Nobody has.

Some have tried, but referring to a handful of past cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice doesn't indicate that the whole of NSY is permanently corrupt. In particular, it doesn't show that the 37 NSY staff working on the MM case are corrupt.

So, far from being in the wrong myself because I have suggested "without proof" that there is no evidence of a whitewash, it's up to those who believe in the whitewash theory to provide strong (not circumstancial) evidence that there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

The question that is never addressed is this: since the case was shelved by the PJ in 2008, NSY had apparently had no involvement with it. So why would the UK government and/or NSY re-open it, put it all back into the full glare of public scrutiny for nearly 3 years, spending millions in the process, just to close it again? For them it was never officially open in the first place.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

Great post Peanut. Even if SY wanted to whitewash this case, it is impossible. 37 Detectives all in the know (they have to be) + a good percentage of those 37 will have spoken to wives and girlfriends. It would only take one of these to speak. Add in that there is always the possibility that one or more of the T9 will grow a pair at some stage in the future and sing. A WW is a risk too far, imo. The truth is coming.

Why does everyone keep saying SY want a whitewash? Could it not be that they are just conducting the investigation as per the orders they were given? Each of the 37 are not following the same threads/leads and very few will be piecing this all together as one single case. It may very well be that AR and one or two others have the whole picture the rest just have the pieces they've been working on. I.e. if you are looking through the phone pings what else do you know. Keeping information in their circle and coming up with the desired result may not be that difficult to keep as a 'secret'. All IMO.

by Poppyfox 25.05.14 23:48

Petunia I agree the end is near. I hope certain parents will be in handcuffs and the rest of the liars charged with perjury etc. I really do hope that there is justice for Madeleine McCann. Also that GA will win his court case and his reputation restored as he truly seems to care about MBM. The SY and PJ both come out of this looking good. tongue

Am an eternal optimist!!!

by Cristobell 26.05.14 0:51

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Am I reading this correctly? That if a member here does not toe the line of accepting that the Grange operation is corrupt, has any other agenda apart from discovering what happened to Madeleine and bringing anyone involved in her disappearance and [what looks like, according to the Met] death, are to be subjected to snide remarks, innuendo and insults?
Thank you for leaping to my defence, russiandoll. I was rather surprised that my motives were questioned just because I mentioned several times in my first 20 posts that there is no evidence of a whitewash. "Several" times because I was waiting for a sound reason why that should be so. I repeated myself because I wanted to test the whitewash theory with everybody who mentioned it, in the hope that they would be able to convince me. Nobody has.

Some have tried, but referring to a handful of past cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice doesn't indicate that the whole of NSY is permanently corrupt. In particular, it doesn't show that the 37 NSY staff working on the MM case are corrupt.

So, far from being in the wrong myself because I have suggested "without proof" that there is no evidence of a whitewash, it's up to those who believe in the whitewash theory to provide strong (not circumstancial) evidence that there is one. I haven't seen it yet.

The question that is never addressed is this: since the case was shelved by the PJ in 2008, NSY had apparently had no involvement with it. So why would the UK government and/or NSY re-open it, put it all back into the full glare of public scrutiny for nearly 3 years, spending millions in the process, just to close it again? For them it was never officially open in the first place.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that some posters think there's a whitewash going on. They're entitled to their view. But why not just wait and see what happens? If the case is closed in unsatisfactory circumstances, that's when the questioning of its integrity should begin. Not now.

As for other agendas, I don't have one.

Great post Peanut.

Regarding the paragraph I have highlighted, I did a quick search of the McCanns initial request for a Review and their private meeting with the Minister of the Interior Alan Johnson. The idea for a review was supported by John Yates, then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who resigned in 2011 amid the hacking scandal and Leicester Police were ready to work with their counterparts. The meeting with Alan Johnson was in March 2010, but by May 2010, the government had changed and we had a new Home Secretary, scourge of the Met, Theresa May.

Theresa May clearly didn't pick up from where AJ left off with the report prepared by CEOP, as by November 2010 (a month after Jim Gamble resigned as Head of CEOP), the McCanns were again appealing for a Review (based on the CEOP report) and accusing Theresa May of fobbing them off with fluffy words. It wasn't until May 2011, 7 months later, and coinciding with the launch of 'KH1' that the McCanns wish was granted and splashed all over their favourite tabloid, the Sun. Methinks there was a little double crossing going on with RB here - heck they were probably all double crossing each other. But I don't wish to digress. For RB, the Madeleine story sold newspapers and it has been a media storm waiting to erupt for 7 years, andit probably didn't matter to RB which way it went. Unfortunately for the McCanns, a new broom sweeps clean and the Review the McCanns got was not the one they wanted and almost certainly not the one recommended by Jim Gamble.

What possessed the McCanns to pick up the Fundraising trail again in November 2010 is baffling. That would have been a good point to withdraw gracefully, but I suppose they couldn't, they had a book launch planned for the coming anniversary in May 2011. They had to keep up the appearance of searching for Maddie and they seemed pretty desperate for funds (mounting legal fees?).

I don't think the Review was granted as a result of public pressure, but because the whole affair has left a stain on the British character. Some old tories have a sense of honour and fair play that compels them to stand up and say 'thats just not cricket old chap'. Theresa May did not meet them with the fawning courtesy of her predecessor, she fobbed them off with fluffy words.

What forced the re-opening? A new piece of evidence (most likely) or a psychological reading of Exhibit 'KH1'? Perhaps the internet and pressure from social media has forced the government's hand. No secrets now, anyone can look up anything, and who knew the PJ would release their files and seekers of justice would kindly translate and distribute them worldwide?

As you pointed out. For whitewash purposes, the case was already safely tucked away and fading from public memory. I wish I could say 100% this is not a whitewash, but some of the things that have happened over the years have been truly amazing. Actually, having said that, I find it amazing that anyone can still stand in front of a camera and say this was an abduction, it would probably come across more forcefully if they just added 'you mugs' at the end.

by worriedmum 26.05.14 4:28

Great post, Cristobell!

by canada12 26.05.14 5:50

worriedmum wrote:Great post, Cristobell!

Seconded!

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 6:25

Cristobell wrote:
What forced the re-opening? A new piece of evidence (most likely) or a psychological reading of Exhibit 'KH1'? Perhaps the internet and pressure from social media has forced the government's hand.

Cristobell, all that you have written is sheer speculation, with no evidential basis whatsoever.

The answer is very clearly provided in a 25-second clip from one of Hideho's excellent YouTube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZiCERG_-xc

If we look at her 6-minute video,

...the passage from 45 secs in to 1 min 15 seconds has Richard Bilton of the BBC telling the nation very very clearly that from TWO SOURCES RIGHT AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT [possibly a fellow government minister or, failing that, some top civil servants] that the Review was announced purely because of 'PRESSURE FROM NEWS INTERNATIONAL', and, of course, as we also know, Rebekah Brooks in particular.

Other sources tell us that Brooks 'threatened David Cameron with a week of bad headlines about Home Secretary Theresa May' unless he gave way to News International's demands for the Review that the McCanns had unsuccessfully lobbied for, for the past three years.

For good measure, Hideho has included the clip from the Leveson Inquiry, where Leveson asks her if she 'threatened' David Cameron. She replies with a smirk on her face: 'I would use the word 'persuasion'.'

So, was this Review prompted, as you suggest, by 'a new piece of evidence'?

NO.

Was it prompted by a 'psychological reading of Exhibit KH1'?

NO.

Was it the 'internet' that forced David Cameron to give way?

NO.

Was it 'pressure from social media' that made Cameron give in?

NO.

None of that.

As clear as crystal, it was intense pressure and specific threats from one person only: Rupert Murdoch's CEO, Rebekah Brooks.

Great video, Hideho

by Guest 26.05.14 9:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
Other sources tell us that Brooks 'threatened David Cameron with a week of bad headlines about Home Secretary Theresa May' unless he gave way to News International's demands for the Review that the McCanns had unsuccessfully lobbied for, for the past three years.

I never understood the supposedly dire nature of this threat, So, one week of bad headlines about one politician that 95% of the population will admit to never having heard of, so early into the administration that it didn't have a hope of affecting their electoral chances in 2015? Were these headlines going to be better or worse for Mrs. May than the recent revelations about Harriet Harman, which have already blown over and seemed to do her party no harm whatsoever in recent council elections?

Of course, if the Sun were in possession of some truly damning knowledge about the lady in question then they owe it the the British people to inform them regardless, rather than sitting on it as some kind of bargaining chip to be used on behalf of neglectful parents.