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

by whatliesbehindthesofa 26.05.14 20:14

aiyoyo wrote:
I haven't got so far if you must know, replying as I come across posts in their order.

A wild guess ? And .... Mods then announce to the entire board members guesser hit the jackpot..yeah right !

TB admitted that he was posting under another account, but that account has been deleted now so nobody can see the posting history. Are you going to keep going on about this?

by aiyoyo 26.05.14 20:19

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
I haven't got so far if you must know, replying as I come across posts in their order.

A wild guess ? And .... Mods then announce to the entire board members guesser hit the jackpot..yeah right !

TB admitted that he was posting under another account, but that account has been deleted now so nobody can see the posting history. Are you going to keep going on about this?

Don't you start on me WLBTS, I'm not in the mood for you!

by Guest 26.05.14 20:21

Enough now. Mods did not announce anything aiyoyo, get your facts right. This is not the thread for this, your are disrupting. Back on topic please.

by aiyoyo 26.05.14 20:26

candyfloss wrote:Enough now. Mods did not announce anything aiyoyo, get your facts right. This is not the thread for this, your are disrupting. Back on topic please.

CF, I appreciate your role is not easy. But please don't patronise me with lie!

Of course Mods did. Else, how do you term the announcement that states "it has been dealt with, with reprimands posted in the public"?

by Guest 26.05.14 20:36

aiyoyo wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Enough now. Mods did not announce anything aiyoyo, get your facts right. This is not the thread for this, your are disrupting. Back on topic please.

CF, I appreciate your role is not easy. But please don't patronise me with lie!

Of course Mods did. Else, how do you term the announcement that states "it has been dealt with, with reprimands posted in the public"?

I do not lie aiyoyo it is the truth...........I am losing my patience, there is a pm facility, pm NFWTD or myself.

by Cristobell 26.05.14 20:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

We can only speculate Tony.

I don't believe pressure from NI forced the re-opening of the Madeleine case, the Review, at least. I actually lean towards new evidence, and I believe RB was aware of it, or may even have instigated it, via hacked phone calls we probably know nothing about. It seems odd that at a time when those involved in major news stories were being hacked, the journalists etc, ignored the most controversial celebrity couple in the world. I am sure there is a lot more to all this than we know.

No matter how friendly David Cameron was with RB or even RM, its the public vote that counts. RB'S motive was to get scoops and sell newspapers, DC just needs to be liked. As the PM who rooted out the evil that lies behind the disappearance of a small child, DC will be a hero. If the McCanns are declared innocent under his watch, he will forever be remembered as RB's puppet who used £10m+ of taxpayers money to appease a newspaper magnate and a couple of sleazy doctors.

The reason I believe new evidence became available is that the Portuguese re-opened their investigation, albeit some time later, and after the visit to Portugal of two senior officers from the CPS. The Portuguese re-opened the case without the fanfare that we saw here in the UK and without threats to their politicians or sensational tabloid journalism.

When Operation Grange comes to an end, as it must, reports will have to be filed and detailed accounts given of every lead followed. In the introduction to that report will be the reasons why the Review was re-opened, and given the controversy surrounding this case, to satisfy a newspaper editor will not suffice. The reports prepared by OP will come under very close scrutiny and any evidence found by OG will one day have to stand up in Court.

by ShuBob 26.05.14 20:59

nobodythereeither wrote:
ShuBob wrote:A non-whitewash outcome for me will be for the McCanns along with their tapas friends and Clarence Mitchell made to answer for their many lies and inconsistencies. Nothing else will be acceptable.

If insufficient conclusive evidence is found to charge anyone from that lot, how would you see them being made to answer for their many lies and inconsistencies, ShuBob?

I don't see how that could happen? Who would make them answer for it, and how?

The PJ may release their latest files (not that that made much difference to public opinion last time, given that the MSM never publicised their contents so far as I know) but SY won't, will they?

So, I really hope that the police will find the evidence they need, and that all those lies and inconsistencies will be laid bare for all to see during a trial.

What there is plenty of evidence of is that they have lied. They can be charged with the lesser crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice while evidence for other charges are being gathered. Luckily, the awful double jeopardy law was repealed years ago.

by Atomic Peanut 26.05.14 21:00

nglfi wrote:Something I've always wondered, for those firmly on the whitewash side, why do people think the Portuguese would willingly go along with this, what would be their motivation? After all , this is and will always be a Portuguese investigation. One of the things that helped me finally get off the fence was when I considered the case more from the Portuguese side, and I honestly couldn't think of any good reasons why they in particular would re open the investigation to whitewash it.

My interpretation of the decision to shelve the case in 2008 is that the Portuguese authorities believed they had solved the case, that there were no dangerous child-snatchers at large, that it would take too much time and money to get it to court, and that there was no point in pursuing it to a conclusion because no third parties in Portugal would suffer as a result of a failure to do so.

It doesn't mean they gave up, as has often been implied; it was just a pragmatic way of moving on and concentrating on matters that were far more important to them, ie crimes of the present and future.

Therefore the active party in re-opening the case would appear to have been the UK, with the Portuguese doing what they need to do to support it.

They wouldn't support a whitewash because there's no reason to believe that they have changed their minds re their original conclusion.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 21:22

Cristobell wrote:

When Operation Grange comes to an end, as it must, reports will have to be filed and detailed accounts given of every lead followed.

REPLY: To whom, Cristobell? Not to the public - we were told at the very beginning that the final report of Grange would be secret. Forever!

In the introduction to that report will be the reasons why the Review was re-opened,

REPLY: You mean they've got secretly-recorded tapes and transcripts of Rebekah Brooks or the News International bloke (Dominic Mohan) ~~threatening~~ persuading David Cameron?

and given the controversy surrounding this case, to satisfy a newspaper editor will not suffice. The reports prepared by OP will come under very close scrutiny and any evidence found by OG will one day have to stand up in Court.

REPLY: Unless they're shredded first. Maybe in a comvenient arson attack.

by Guest 26.05.14 21:33

Am I being thick because I don't understand why the Portuguese need to be complicit to enable OG to whitewash the case, doesn't the term whitewash tie in with the Mccanns being protected by the British establishment which I think has been widely thought since 2007? I expect one of the forum's invaluable researchers or long standing members has already written on the subject, disregarding Kate's book where she goes to great lengths to explain their departure from Portugal, iirc in late August or early September the PJ were said to be giving out hints about the change of position for the Mccanns. If this be true then it seems unlikely that they would have been allowed to leave Portugal at that stage of the investigation but they did, very quickly, some higher authority must have sanctioned their departure and later removed Goncalo Amaral from the case. Had they remained in Portugal IMO, without British intervention, the investigation would have continued and probably reached a favourable conclusion but as it was they escaped the clutches of the PJ to almost guaranteed freedom.

The Scotland Yard review and reinvestigation could be only to clear their names which at present remain under a cloud?

by Atomic Peanut 26.05.14 21:44

It's more likely that the Portuguese authorities believed that those who had created the situation were the ones who had suffered the most.

The decision not to pursue it beyond their published reasoning was both practical and compassionate.

Nobody in Portugal was in danger from an abductor on the loose, so there was no point in prolonging the matter.

The beauty of this conclusion is that it involves no government/police conspiracies, and is reassuringly simple.

by Improper Conduct 26.05.14 21:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

When Operation Grange comes to an end, as it must, reports will have to be filed and detailed accounts given of every lead followed.

REPLY: To whom, Cristobell? Not to the public - we were told at the very beginning that the final report of Grange would be secret. Forever!

In the introduction to that report will be the reasons why the Review was re-opened,

REPLY: You mean they've got secretly-recorded tapes and transcripts of Rebekah Brooks or the News International bloke (Dominic Mohan) ~~threatening~~ persuading David Cameron?

and given the controversy surrounding this case, to satisfy a newspaper editor will not suffice. The reports prepared by OP will come under very close scrutiny and any evidence found by OG will one day have to stand up in Court.

REPLY: Unless they're shredded first. Maybe in a comvenient arson attack.

Any chance someone can point me to the correct wording about the final (ha!) report being kept secret. I know it was said, but I would like to see the wording in full. Many Thanks

by ShuBob 26.05.14 21:47

Atomic Peanut wrote:It's more likely that the Portuguese authorities believed that those who had created the situation were the ones who had suffered the most.

The decision not to pursue it beyond their published reasoning was both practical and compassionate.

Nobody in Portugal was in danger from an abductor on the loose, so there was no point in prolonging the matter.

The beauty of this conclusion is that it involves no conspiracy, and is reassuringly simple.

But what about the innocent people caught in the cross-fire because of the couple's campaign? They shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they've been doing IMO.

by Improper Conduct 26.05.14 21:52

ShuBob wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:It's more likely that the Portuguese authorities believed that those who had created the situation were the ones who had suffered the most.

The decision not to pursue it beyond their published reasoning was both practical and compassionate.

Nobody in Portugal was in danger from an abductor on the loose, so there was no point in prolonging the matter.

The beauty of this conclusion is that it involves no conspiracy, and is reassuringly simple.

But what about the innocent people caught in the cross-fire because of the couple's campaign? They shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they've been doing IMO.

When Special Branch cosy you home on your return, you can be sure cross-fire was the political agenda...
BTW....Their field is Nuclear now big grin

by Atomic Peanut 26.05.14 21:54

ShuBob wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:It's more likely that the Portuguese authorities believed that those who had created the situation were the ones who had suffered the most.

The decision not to pursue it beyond their published reasoning was both practical and compassionate.

Nobody in Portugal was in danger from an abductor on the loose, so there was no point in prolonging the matter.

The beauty of this conclusion is that it involves no conspiracy, and is reassuringly simple.
But what about the innocent people caught in the cross-fire because of the couple's campaign? They shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they've been doing IMO.

Good point ShuBob, but that was more a UK matter than a Portuguese one, surely?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 21:55

Gollum wrote:The Scotland Yard review and reinvestigation could be only to clear their names which at present remain under a cloud?

The McCanns proclaimed themselves 'cleared' by the final report of the Portuguese Regional Attorney-General. That was in July 2008.

On the face of it, then, it's a puzzle why they aggressively demanded a Review - first, in 2009 from Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson, then in 2010 from Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May.

They were so insistent and determined about it that they were:

(a) prepared to publicly criticise the Home Secretary for her refusal to agree to their demands, and

(b) start a nationwide petition calling for a Review.

Again, on the face of it, this was because they were saying, in effect, that the Portuguese Police were not doing enough to find Madeleine (or to find out what happened to Madeleine).

The other explanation advance by some is that they were desperate to get their hands on all the evidence in the case that the Portuguese Police had deliberately held back - presumably because they feared (however irrationally) that there might be matters there which could incriminate them.

If that was the motive, it doesn't look like they've got their hand on them yet.

For three long years, Scotland Yard have been saying, repeatedly: 'There should be a joint investigation".

I think the Portuguese have answered, again repeatedly:

'No', 'No', No', 'No'...

++++++++++++++++++++++

Slightly different topic: Robert Jay and Rebekah Brooks locking horns at the Leveson Enquiry:

Q: Robert Jay
A: Brooks

Q. Ultimate responsibility, Mr Rupert Murdoch. Mr James Murdoch was a party to it. You were instrumental, to use your term, and Mr Kavanagh was there as well. Effectively it was those four people, wasn't it?

A. And Mr Mohan, the editor.

Q. Yes. Was he contributing much to this debate or not?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Five of you then, add him as well.

A. Yes.

Q. All five of you in different ways exercising considerable power. Would you agree?

A. I think that we were - the part of me, Mr Kavanagh and Tom Newton Dunn, who was the political editor, and
Dominic Mohan, the journalists, I think we were all of a mind that this was the right thing to do for the paper and for our readership. We just didn't see it in those terms, so I'm - I'm sorry.

Q. You don't see the intrusion - I'll use a different word - the dissemination of power from within a few people capable of impacting on the opinions of many people? You don't see that as being at least a possibility?

A. Well, I can see how you can phrase it like that...

by ShuBob 26.05.14 22:09

Atomic Peanut wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:It's more likely that the Portuguese authorities believed that those who had created the situation were the ones who had suffered the most.

The decision not to pursue it beyond their published reasoning was both practical and compassionate.

Nobody in Portugal was in danger from an abductor on the loose, so there was no point in prolonging the matter.

The beauty of this conclusion is that it involves no conspiracy, and is reassuringly simple.
But what about the innocent people caught in the cross-fire because of the couple's campaign? They shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they've been doing IMO.
Good point ShuBob, but that was more a UK matter than a Portuguese one, surely?

Portuguese as well. Don't forget the campaign leads news crews to PdL on a regular basis disrupting the lives and livelihoods of locals- fat, smelly or otherwise.

by Atomic Peanut 26.05.14 22:23

True ShuBob, but to put this all into perspective we should take everything back to the state of play in September 2007.

Things that have occurred since then wouldn't have been taken into account during the shelving process (which ended the following summer), so we mustn't allow them to distract us.

Unfortunately some of those things have spiralled completely out of control because the matter wasn't allowed to rest elsewhere.

The scenario I outlined above, if true, would explain almost everything that appears to have been so hard to understand since then.

It makes sense to me, and it's beautifully simple.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 22:34

Improper Conduct wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

When Operation Grange comes to an end, as it must, reports will have to be filed and detailed accounts given of every lead followed.

REPLY: To whom, Cristobell? Not to the public - we were told at the very beginning that the final report of Grange would be secret. Forever!

Any chance someone can point me to the correct wording about the final (ha!) report being kept secret. I know it was said, but I would like to see the wording in full. Many Thanks

I am not absolutely sure now whether they did say exactly that. I did ask about that in a Freedom of Information Act request near the beginning of this Review.

Though long, for interest I'll reproduce my FOI Act request - and the Met's reply, with the relevant passages in red.

Note that I asked for Grange's remit, and was initially refused. They only gave way months later, presumably because so many other people wanted to know what the remit was.:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wednesday 27 July 2011

Head of Freedom of Information Act Section
Metropolitan Police
Scotland Yard,
Broadway,
LONDON
SW1H 0BG

Dear Sir/Madam

BY RECORDED DELIVERY LETTER

re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions – Madeleine McCann Review Team

Please answer the following questions in relation to the Madeleine McCann Review Team:

1.   What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
2.   When was that remit agreed?
3.   Who decided the remit?

4. When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

5. On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that: “Scotland Yard’s new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force’s most experienced detectives”. Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.
6.   On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that: “Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case”. Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.
7.   On 15 May 2011, the Indepentent on Sunday said that: “Mr Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander”. Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overasll charge of the HSCC”.
8.   On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondnce. Please state whether or not this is the case.
9.   Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowldgement of the receipt of that information will be given.
10. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its rview? If so, when is it?
11. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metroplitan Police Authorty?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Tony Bennett

Secretary
The Madeleine Foundation

NOTE: 28 working days from tomorrow [28 July): Thursday 25 August

_______________________

Home Office response
17 October 2011

Thank you for your letter of 3 August 2011 to the Home Secretary on behalf of [redacted] who expresses concern about the continuing role of the Metropolitan Police into the review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following the phone hacking scandal. I am replying as the Minister responsible for policy in this area. I apologise for delay in this reply.
Ensuring the integrity of our police is vital for their work and as [redacted] indicates, any allegations of corruption or favouritism undermines public confidence in whichever police force those officers belong to, and in policing as a whole.

That is why this government will not stand idly by following the recent events. The Prime Minister announced an independent inquiry in July which will be led by Lord Leveson. Crucially, amongst other issues, the inquiry will look into the original police investigations and their failings, the issue of corrupt payments to police officers and the implications of all this for relations between police and the press. The Home Secretary has also asked Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to provide her with recommendations for improving police integrity and the Independent Police Complaints Commission for a report on their experience of corruption in the police. And we are considering what other powers may be needed to investigate institutional failings in a force or forces.

Turning to the case of Madeleine McCann more specifically, it might be helpful if I clarify the Government's role in this matter. Since Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal some four years ago, the Portuguese authorities have retained the lead in this case. However, the Government has continued to liaise with them and the police here have been following up any leads and passing information on to the Portuguese authorities as appropriate.

In view of the passage of time since Madeleine disappeared, in May, the Home Secretary with the Prime Minister's support, asked the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to bring its particular expertise and know-how to the case which might help provide a fresh perspective and suggest lines of inquiry which might usefully be pursued. In the light of the request, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner took the operational decision to review the evidence relating to the case. That work is underway and is part of the UK's continuing contribution to the search for Madeleine. The MPS have continued to update the Home Secretary on progress with the review and despite recent events involving the MPS and the allegations of phone hacking, we are satisfied that it is appropriate that they continue to take this forward.

[redacted] also expressed concern about government funding being directed to the review. The nature and scope of the work will depend on their operational assessment by the MPS of how best their expertise might be used in taking forward the search for Madeleine. That work is ongoing and it is not possible at this stage to estimate how long the review will take or the likely costs. The Home Office will provide necessary funding and this will be subject to the Home Office and the MPS reviewing together the value and cost of the work at each stage. While Madeleine remains missing we will continue to do what we can in the search for her.

[redacted] suggests that the results of the review and associated costs are published. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the public has a general right of access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities. It also sets out exemptions from that right and places a number of obligations on public authorities. The Act applies to the vast majority of public authorities in the United Kingdom, including the MPS. Therefore, [redacted] is free to submit a request to the MPS for information relating to this case.
Yours ever,

[redacted]

From: Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
[Request and response 2]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/08/2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions - Madeleine McCann Review Team
Please answer the following questions in relation to the Madeleine McCann Review Team:

1. What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
2. When was that remit agreed?
3. Who decided the remit?

4. When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

5. On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.
6. On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that "Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.
7. On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".
8. On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.
9. Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.
10. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?
11. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate - Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

Answer questions 5, 6 , 7, 10 and 11 in full

To refuse questions 8 and 9 by virtue of section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) as an invalid request.

To exempt questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 by virtue of section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.
Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The following questions have been responded to in full:

At question 5 you asked: On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.

At Question 6 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that " Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.

At question 7 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".

The MPS response is: The senior officer with oversight of the review is Commander Simon Foy. Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Andy Redwood is the Senior Investigating Officer. DCI Redwood reports to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell.

At question 10 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?

The MPS response is: The review team does not have a deadline for the completion of its review.

At question 11 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

The MPS response is: The MPS has allocated a team to deal with this and the Home Office have agreed to reimburse this cost. This is reviewed on a quarterly basis.

The following questions have been refused on the grounds that they do not constitute a valid request under the Act:

At question 8 you asked: On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.

At question 9 you asked: Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.

The MPS response is: I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested under the provisions of Section 8(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what recorded information you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek assistance from any other available source.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?

You have the right to request any information held by public authorities. The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting minutes, research or reports held by public authorities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by the MPS but questions which require a confirmation of a statement. You will need to be specific as to the recorded information you require.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt.

The following questions are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1 )(a)(b)(c) and Section 31(1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Act:

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

At question 1 you asked: What is the precise remit of the Review Team?

At question 2 you asked: When was that remit agreed?

At question 3 you asked: Who decided the remit?

At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act

Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

Under Section 30(1 )(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act .

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act. I have addressed your request in order to both confirm if the requested information is held by the MPS and then to provide this information to you. Where I have been unable to provide the requested information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world.

This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and / or civil process.

Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.

High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to the action taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to promoting awareness, accountability and would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and transparency. Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the MPS's action during this investigation and would demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and transparent with the public showing what procedures are carried out.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Information relating to an ongoing review will rarely be disclosed and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. In this case, release of the requested information could allow individuals to use the information contained in the remit to undermine the methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede current /future investigations. Release of the remit and the other details could inform suspects of the progress of the review and allow them to use the information contained in it for criminal activities and to avoid justice.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to your request for information about the remit of The Madeleine McCann Review. The MPS will rarely disclose information relating to an ongoing review as to do so could adversely harm that investigation.

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 8(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or

(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Cristobell 26.05.14 22:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

When Operation Grange comes to an end, as it must, reports will have to be filed and detailed accounts given of every lead followed.

REPLY: To whom, Cristobell? Not to the public - we were told at the very beginning that the final report of Grange would be secret. Forever!

Not possible Tony, Operation Grange is publicly funded, there is accountability, and more so now after Theresa May's address to the Police Federation.

In the introduction to that report will be the reasons why the Review was re-opened,

REPLY: You mean they've got secretly-recorded tapes and transcripts of Rebekah Brooks or the News International bloke (Dominic Mohan) ~~threatening~~ persuading David Cameron?

Not what I meant at all. Hacking was rife during the McCanns' hay days and exclusive Maddie stories were much in demand. Isn't it possible that the McCanns, the tapas friends or the family were targeted? If the NOTW went after the Dowlers, sure as eggs is eggs, they went after the McCanns.

and given the controversy surrounding this case, to satisfy a newspaper editor will not suffice. The reports prepared by OP will come under very close scrutiny and any evidence found by OG will one day have to stand up in Court.

REPLY: Unless they're shredded first. Maybe in a comvenient arson attack.

A bit extreme, but again impossible. Who stores valuable records on paper these days? There are also 37 detectives plus clerical staff, involved in Operation Grange who are living testimony to what the investigation uncovered.

by Guest 26.05.14 22:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gollum wrote:The Scotland Yard review and reinvestigation could be only to clear their names which at present remain under a cloud?

The McCanns proclaimed themselves 'cleared' by the final report of the Portuguese Regional Attorney-General. That was in July 2008.

On the face of it, then, it's a puzzle why they aggressively demanded a Review - first, in 2009 from Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson, then in 2010 from Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May.

They were so insistent and determined about it that they were:

(a) prepared to publicly criticise the Home Secretary for her refusal to agree to their demands, and

(b) start a nationwide petition calling for a Review.

Again, on the face of it, this was because they were saying, in effect, that the Portuguese Police were not doing enough to find Madeleine (or to find out what happened to Madeleine).

The other explanation advance by some is that they were desperate to get their hands on all the evidence in the case that the Portuguese Police had deliberately held back - presumably because they feared (however irrationally) that there might be matters there which could incriminate them.

If that was the motive, it doesn't look like they've got their hand on them yet.

For three long years, Scotland Yard have been saying, repeatedly: 'There should be a joint investigation".

I think the Portuguese have answered, again repeatedly:

'No', 'No', No', 'No'...

++++++++++++++++++++++

Slightly different topic: Robert Jay and Rebekah Brooks locking horns at the Leveson Enquiry:

Q: Robert Jay
A: Brooks

Q. Ultimate responsibility, Mr Rupert Murdoch. Mr James Murdoch was a party to it. You were instrumental, to use your term, and Mr Kavanagh was there as well. Effectively it was those four people, wasn't it?

A. And Mr Mohan, the editor.

Q. Yes. Was he contributing much to this debate or not?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Five of you then, add him as well.

A. Yes.

Q. All five of you in different ways exercising considerable power. Would you agree?

A. I think that we were - the part of me, Mr Kavanagh and Tom Newton Dunn, who was the political editor, and
Dominic Mohan, the journalists, I think we were all of a mind that this was the right thing to do for the paper and for our readership. We just didn't see it in those terms, so I'm - I'm sorry.

Q. You don't see the intrusion - I'll use a different word - the dissemination of power from within a few people capable of impacting on the opinions of many people? You don't see that as being at least a possibility?

A. Well, I can see how you can phrase it like that...

I have to admit I've always thought the motive for pushing for a review was to get their hands on information concealed within the Portuguese paperwork, after all as far as I'm aware they never pushed for a British based investigation only a review of all documentation. That doesn't alter my view that OG is literally a means to an end, to bury any suspicion of the parents once and for all.

Looking at all the information emanating from OG, they appear to be disregarding all the most pertinent evidence and intelligence gathered by the PJ investigation (that which casts suspicion over the Tapas group) and concentrating all their resources, both financial and manpower, towards a labyrinth of cul-de-sacs.

Rebekah Brooks and her cronies? Some people know no boundaries when in comes to career advancement and power.

by nobodythereeither 26.05.14 22:59

Gollum wrote:
Looking at all the information emanating from OG, they appear to be disregarding all the most pertinent evidence and intelligence gathered by the PJ investigation (that which casts suspicion over the Tapas group) and concentrating all their resources, both financial and manpower, towards a labyrinth of cul-de-sacs.

Do you really think that they are going to make public a blow by blow account of what they are doing?

How can you possibly tell what they may be "disregarding" and what they are "concentrating all their resources" on?

What they choose to tell the public (or lead the public to believe) and what they are doing behind the scenes are likely to be very different, in my opinion.

by Woofer 26.05.14 23:24

I know it was definitely stated that the results of the review or investigation would not be made public, but I can`t find it now. I thought it was stated in the original remit but it`s not there now.

@ Tony`s reply to FOI request - "At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act

Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

Under Section 30(1 )(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. "

I can`t get my head round that - why does that mean they can`t tell Tony who the report will be presented to?

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 23:25

Cristobell wrote:
Who stores valuable records on paper these days?

Surely you saw the very same CrimeWatch programme that I did on 13 October last year? Did you not see the rows and rows and stacks of shelves packed high with boxes bulging with papers? All neatly labelled. Do you remember the big boxes of documents being carried by police or Metodo 3 staff in Barcelona? Ever seen the barrow boys carting boxes and boxes of documents on trolleys from solicitors' and barristers' officee to and from the Hgh Court? Paper, paper, paper. And of course memory sticks and disks can easily be lost as well.

There are also 37 detectives plus clerical staff, involved in Operation Grange who are living testimony to what the investigation uncovered.

I think you may have missed a valuable point on another thread made on this subject, which was about precisely how a corrupt police operation is carried out. The poster said that the top two or three will be men chosen for the job, corrupt or corruptible people who will do it for money, promotion prospects or whatever. The team is then split into small units who get different tasks to work on and never see the whole picture. Sensitive information coming in goes straight to the boss for processing. The men doing the donkey work of reading one ridiculous theory or witness statement or claimed sighting after another may not be aware that the top people in the team are working to a wholly different agenda. This happened in the case of Dean Boshell in Essex. The two people who murdered him were drug-dealers Damon Alvin and Ricky Percival. Damon Alvin was very close to the S.I.O. in the case (to put it kindly). A detective working on the case kept on receiving information from the community which put Damon Alvin in the frame. When he sent a formal protest by way of a note to the S.I.O. asking why Alvin wasn't arrested, he was removed from the investigation and harassed. To cut a long story short, the S.I.O. and Alvin did a dirty deal whereby he turned Queen's Evidence against Percival, and got a new identity and all the benefits of the witness protection programme, new house, money etc. The whole investigation was corrupt from the word 'go'. It was all good news for the corrupt S.I.O. in the case as well. He now works for the Independnee Police Complaints Commission!

by **Tony Bennett** 26.05.14 23:27

nobodythereeither wrote:
Do you really think that they are going to make public a blow by blow account of what they are doing? How can you possibly tell what they may be "disregarding" and what they are "concentrating all their resources" on? What they choose to tell the public (or lead the public to believe) and what they are doing behind the scenes are likely to be very different, in my opinion.

You are very insistent that this is a genuine investigation, aren't you?