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

by Guest 26.05.14 10:48

The reply from David Cameron was by return of post if I recall correctly.

As if that would happen in the real world!

by sofieellis 26.05.14 10:55

I don't think the police ever declare someone as a suspect, unless they are arrested/charged, do they? So when they were asked if the McCanns were suspects, they didn't really have much choice but to deny it.

Thinking about the Mikael Kular case, the police never announced that they were treating his mother as a suspect. They were asking the public to help with sightings etc, but I think it's pretty clear that they suspected her straight away. They didn't tell the public that though.

ETA: It was the same with Shannon Matthews. My husband helped with the police searches and was told by police that the situation was believed to be "domestic" But again, that wasn't revealed to the public, until after Shannon had been found.

by **sharonl** 26.05.14 11:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:So being such good friends with DC as is her husband, she 'threatened' him? Is that what good friends do then, blackmail and threaten each other. Funny friendship then imo. I think it was all hype to sell the story.
But whatever the state of their 'friendship', it is quite clear from the exchanges at the Leveson enquiry that, based on clear evidence (as the clip of Rebekah Brooks at Leveson shows):

1. Leveson said 'did you threaten the Prime Minister?'

2. Brooks repiled with a smirk 'not threatened, let's say 'persuaded'.'

There can be no real doubt that it was persuasive/threatening words by Rebekah Brooks/News International that forced David Cameron into ordering a review into the disappeaeance of Madeleine McCannn.

Where I can agree with you is that she may not have threatened a week of bad headlines against Theresa May.

It could have been something even more embarrassing for the Prime Minister that Brooks/News International had over him

News International was failing financially in 2006, so badly that Rupert Murdoch eventually started up a new company News Intl. Rebekah needed good storylines to keep the company going.

No matter how friendly Rebekah was with Dave Cameron, she is a business woman and her priority would have been to make sure that the company was successful.

Rebekah, not only part of the chipping Norton set, she was within the group of friends who would regularly meet up for parties at Matthew Freuds', Notting Hill home, where she has occasionally been known to have been dropped off by Gordon Brown after meeting him for dinner.

Then we have those Parties in the flat above no.10 that she attended, even Pyjama parties.

There are the government cover ups like Hillsborough, Daniel Morgan and half a dozen other that Therea May referred to the other night, Rebekah would know a lot about these.

Then there was the cash for honours, and the cash for questions scandals that were hushed up.

We have this elite paedophile ring that we all talk about, the only ones protected seem to be the "honoured ones", but how did they get those honours in the first place? Are we back to the 2007 cash for honours scandal here?

There is more, and although we, the public know very little about any of the above I would imagine that Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks know much more. After all, they have had journalists researching these things for years but unfortunately with the likes of Mitchell controlling what is revealed in the press.

The bottom line, Rebekah Brooks will always be a friend, because she knows too much.

by Doug D 26.05.14 11:41

Whatever the level of ‘threat’ or ‘persuasion’, surely the most important thing for RB was to gain maximum publicity in order to sell more papers. Did she really give a stuff about the McCann case?

All just a pre-planned campaign imo. "It was The Sun that done it!" all over again.

McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told the newspaper: "The publication date for Madeleine has now been moved on to May 12 2011 in the light of the royal wedding and the subsequent media coverage that will generate.

(So don’t want to publish it when it won’t make the front pages then)

9 May 2011 - In a heart-rending book serialised from today in The Sun, Kate, 43, writes how she is haunted by “flashes” of Madeleine “screaming” for her and ...

13 May 2011 - In a moving open letter delivered to Number Ten Downing Street on their behalf by The Sun last night, (so 12^th May), they call on Mr Cameron to press for a ...

DC response letter was dated 13 May 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian

13^th May 2011

‘The PM has been accused of bowing to the Murdoch empire over his decision to intervene in the Madeleine McCann case.

Two peers who are members of police watchdogs warned that the independence of the Metropolitan police was under threat after the prime minister brought in Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Insiders at the Yard played down any suggestions that their role could quickly lead to any breakthrough in the case, saying that the review, which will cost millions of pounds, could take months or even years.

Labour's Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused David Cameron of bowing to Rupert Murdoch's empire, referring to Cameron's decision to call in Scotland Yard after Kate McCann wrote an open letter in the Sun asking for his help’.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 11:45

Angelique wrote:Tony

You said: "There can be no real doubt that it was persuasive/threatening words by Rebekah Brooks/News International that forced David Cameron into ordering a review into the disappeaeance of Madeleine McCannn." But was this really a threat - or just show? They went riding together, lunched, text to each other. IMO they were "close".

REPLY: This 'friendship' was a union of two people with intense ambition. Cameron's one desire was to be PM. To reach that goal, as is very obvious, he needed the help of Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers. The dominant one of the two was therefore Rebekah Brooks.

And let us recall that the McCanns had tried and tried to get a Review past Theresa May but could not. She kept rebuffing them. Hence the McCanns' public criticism of her, calling her 'fluffy' etc. Rebekah Brooks went to Cameron over the head of Theresa May. She got what she wanted. I suspect it was at this point that any 'friendship' between them rapidly cooled.

Also the reply from Cameron came back too quickly, as though already written and waiting for the "off" - IIRC.

REPLY: Agreed. No doubt this was carefully choreographed and scripted days beforehand, as in:

Cameron: "OK, I give in. OK, you make a demand for a Review in the Sun. Yes, OK, you print a letter from the McCanns to me begging me to set up a Rview. Then, just before you go to print, I will announce (just to you so you can put the 'Exclusive' tag on your story) that I've decided in the interests of justice and humanity etc. blah blah that I have ordered, I mean, sorry, the Home Secretary has ordered, whoops I didn't ge tthat bit right either, I mean the Home Secretary has spoken to Sir Paul Stephenson, Head of the Met, who has completely off his own bat decided for operational reasons that he will carry out the Review - and then Sir Paul Stephenson will say: 'No, neither David Cameron nor Theresa May told me what to do; I am totally independent and have just decided that, yes, the Met should carry out a review of Madeleine's abduction by a total stranger".

by Guest 26.05.14 12:12

http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2012/may/11/leveson-inquiry-rebekah-brooks-live
　
12.49pm: Brooks is asked about the serialisation in the Sunday Times and the Sun of a book by Kate McCann, the mother of Madeleine.

Gerry McCann told the inquiry that they were initially "horrified" about the serialisation, but were later convinced after News International pledged to back their campaign if they agreed to the serialisation.

Brooks can't remember how much News International paid for the book serialisation.

"Hundreds of thousands. It wasn't £1m. Half a million maybe?"

She adds: "I had always got on very well with Gerry and Kate McCann. I think if asked they would be very positive about the Sun. In this case I thought Dominic Mohan's idea to run the campaign, this review of Madeleine's case by the home secretary, was the right thing to do … I don't think I spoke to Theresa May directly. Dominic [Mohan] may have done."

12.52pm: Brooks says she did not take the McCann issue up with Downing Street.

Editor Dominic Mohan or Tom Newton-Dunn, the Sun's political editor, will have spoken to No 10 or the Home Office about reopening the Madeleine investigation after the Sun's campaign, she says.

Was there an ultimatum or threat to the home secretary?

"I'm pretty sure there will not have been a threat, but you will have to ask Dominic Mohan," she says.

Jay says he has been told that Brooks intervened personally with the prime minister and said the Sun would put Theresa May on the front page every day until the paper's demands were met.

Brooks says that is not true. "I did not say to the prime minister we would put Theresa May on the front page every day. If I'd had any conversations with No 10 directly they would not have been particularly about that," she adds.

[url=l block-59]12.55pm:[/url] Lord Justice Leveson intervenes. He asks whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation.

"I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns," Brooks says, disputing that it was a "threat".

Leveson: "Give me another word for it, would you?"

Brooks: "Persuade?"

Leveson appears unconvinced.

[url=l block-60]12.57pm:[/url] Jay suggests the government yielded to Brooks's pressure to reopen the McCann investigation. "It only took about a day," he notes, drily.
Brooks insists that this was a worthwhile campaign.

A game of political chess?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 12:22

Gollum wrote:12.55pm: Lord Justice Leveson intervenes. He asks whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation.

"I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns," Brooks says, disputing that it was a "threat".

Leveson: "Give me another word for it, would you?"

Brooks: "Persuade?"

Leveson appears unconvinced.

12.57pm: Jay suggests the government yielded to Brooks's pressure to reopen the McCann investigation. "It only took about a day," he notes, drily.
Brooks insists that this was a worthwhile campaign.

A game of political chess?

Queen takes pawn?

by ShuBob 26.05.14 12:27

Whatever game they were playing, a 24-hour turnaround is a bit of a result. I don't buy it!

by Guest 26.05.14 12:55

ShuBob wrote:Whatever game they were playing, a 24-hour turnaround is a bit of a result. I don't buy it!

Things have moved on since the building of Rome. Desperate times call for desperate measures, if a senior politician was caught in the smoking room with his trousers round his ankles see how fast they can move!

by ShuBob 26.05.14 12:58

Gollum wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Whatever game they were playing, a 24-hour turnaround is a bit of a result. I don't buy it!

Things have moved on since the building of Rome. Desperate times call for desperate measures, if a senior politician was caught in the smoking room with his trousers round his ankles see how fast they can move!

Not that fast IMO.

I believe things were already in motion before the "threat" and the McCanns knew it.

by nobodythereeither 26.05.14 13:13

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

2. "They have been updating them regularly". Of course they have. They are the parents of a missing child. You have no idea exactly what information SY have been updating theMcCanns with, however. All parents of a missing child are "updated regularly" - and some of those updated parents subsequently went on to be accused of their child/rens' death.

3. "They have not reinterviewed any of the T9". How do you know that? I suggest you don't. If you do, please share where you are getting this information from!!

4. "Senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio" - you expect them to say what? Clearly they don't yet have sufficient hard evidence or there would have been arrests. Do you expect them to jeopardise the investigation and a possible future trial by showing their hand now?

5. "The McCanns are outside of the SY investigative remit." You know this how, exactly? The review became an investigation. Things change.

6. "It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered .... to persuade them otherwise." How on earth can you possibly know what would "persuade" the SY to think anything? If they already had sufficient evidence for arrests/a prosecution, then I suggest that would have happened. This is about facts, surely, not "persuasion".

by nobodythereeither 26.05.14 13:19

russiandoll wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:Which is what, exactly, in your view?
I think that's abundantly clear from your 23 posts to date since joining here on 7 May, just over two weeks ago.

Your first three posts (or 13% of your posts) basically welcomed the proposal to send another set of dogs to Praia da Luz, over 7 years after Madeleine's reported disappearance. In one of those posts, you proffered this (IMO ludicrous) opinion:

"It's surprising that a second pair of dogs wasn't sent into 5A back in August 2007 as a back-up to Eddie and Keela".

Martin Grime, head-hunted by the F.B.I. and now working for them full-time, not good enough for you, AP?

Your other 20 posts (87% of the total) all seek to persuade members of this forum, without giving us a jot of evidence, that DCI Redwood, DCSupt Hamish Campbell and the rest of the top brass of the Met are all as honest as the day is long - and that anyone who even thinks that this £7.6 million-and-counting investigation might be farcical and expensive charade is badly mistaken

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?

In another post Tony made what I believe was an offensive remark to Ultimathule....again because she holds an opinion which is contrary to his own.

Before Tony's supporters jump on me about how he posts in his own name and therefore is to be beyond criticism, let me say that I admire his using his own identity, but I also know that he uses an alias on the forum and who knows if there is just one.

Tony standing up in his own name to declare his beliefs is admirable, but what is far from admirable is his attitude towards anybody who holds a contrary view about this current investigation.

There is no justification for the sideswipes and offensive remarks.
Tony does not know for a fact what SY are doing and his opinion is no more valid than any other opinion on this forum.
If this goes on members here with good contributions to make will be leaving to continue the debate elsewhere.

eta : imo Tony is belittling himself by his continuing bad attitude towards some members of the forum .

I completely agree.

I do not understand why this one member of the forum appears to get away with insulting others who do not agree with his theories, whilst others are reprimanded.

I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed? Are other people doing that too?

by Guest 26.05.14 13:39

This has been brought to the attention of the person concerned, nobodythereeither, with reprimands posted on the public forum.

by nobodythereeither 26.05.14 13:43

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:This has been brought to the attention of the person concerned, nobodythereeither, with reprimands posted on the public forum.

Sorry, was catching up, hadn't seen subsequent posts.

by Woofer 26.05.14 13:50

@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

by Improper Conduct 26.05.14 13:55

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I wouldn't care less about CR even if I had already come under their spotlight in the past. I would happily sit in a prison cell for a few weeks if I knew it would bring out publicity of my imprisonment.

by bobbin 26.05.14 13:57

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

by SixMillionQuid 26.05.14 14:36

nobodythereeither wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

by ShuBob 26.05.14 14:45

SixMillionQuid wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!
How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

So the same may happen in this case? Who knows? In any case, I think it's best to wait and see.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.05.14 14:45

SixMillionQuid wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!
How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

Round and round in circles we go.

How can you say nothing when asked if the Tapas 9 are suspects? Redwood could have said 'No comment', which would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have just sat there staring into space waiting for the next question. That also would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have stated up front 'Don't ask me if the Tapas 9 are suspects'. That would also have been interpreted as 'yes'.

by worriedmum 26.05.14 14:48

bobbin wrote:
Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.
I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

Well said, Bobbin. clapping1

I do not agree with everything Tony says but I respect his reasons for posting under different identities-AFAIK everyone else is doing the very same thing!

Without wishing to sound like a Joyce Grenfell nanny, I do think members have been getting a tad het up with each other recently. I have not been a member from the very beginning and I am in awe of the amount of information members have collated and presented. I think we are in endgame and every body is getting a bit jittery. This forum is a real achievement and it is a strength that we can hold different views and opinions as we try to get to the truth-because after all, no-one knows for certain what the whole truth is yet.

by SixMillionQuid 26.05.14 14:54

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!
How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

Round and round in circles we go.

How can you say nothing when asked if the Tapas 9 are suspects? Redwood could have said 'No comment', which would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have just sat there staring into space waiting for the next question. That also would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have stated up front 'Don't ask me if the Tapas 9 are suspects'. That would also have been interpreted as 'yes'.

So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

by Guest 26.05.14 14:57

ShuBob wrote:
Gollum wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Whatever game they were playing, a 24-hour turnaround is a bit of a result. I don't buy it!

Things have moved on since the building of Rome. Desperate times call for desperate measures, if a senior politician was caught in the smoking room with his trousers round his ankles see how fast they can move!

Not that fast IMO.

I believe things were already in motion before the "threat" and the McCanns knew it.

Now I'm with you, apologies I missed your point. Can't disagree with the likelihood that the wheels were already in motion but I maintain the conviction that Rebekah Brooks and staff were behind the political pressure for a review. I think some people would be amazed to learn how much influence the British media has in the world of Westminster, after all the press has always been party orientated hasn't it? You scratch my back I'll scratch yours philosophy?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.05.14 14:58

SixMillionQuid wrote:
So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

Me personally? I've no idea what you mean.

There would be an explosion of activity in the press if it was revealed that the Tapas 9 were suspects. Common sense tells me that SY don't want that to happen until they are ready to pounce, if that day ever comes. What if they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute, but had already declared them suspects? There would be hell to pay.

by Guest 26.05.14 15:00

SixMillionQuid wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio. Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors. It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!
How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

Round and round in circles we go.

How can you say nothing when asked if the Tapas 9 are suspects? Redwood could have said 'No comment', which would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have just sat there staring into space waiting for the next question. That also would have been interpreted as 'yes'. Or he could have stated up front 'Don't ask me if the Tapas 9 are suspects'. That would also have been interpreted as 'yes'.
So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?