Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks

HelenMeg wrote:Cabinet  Brown June 2007
Alistair Darling
David Miliband
Jack Straw
Andy Burnham
Geoff Hoon
Shaun Woodward
John Denham
John Hutton
James Purnell
Shaun Woodward
Douglas Alexander
Des Browne
Alan Johnson
Hilary Benn
Ed Balls
Peter Hain

Cabinet Blair May 2007

• ony Blair — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

Now continue the process and eliminate the ones the general public have never herd of .

comperedna wrote:My goodness it is not some cabinet minister making a pass at some MP!  That kind of thing goes on a lot of the time with some of the less choice ones, bad though that situation may be.  It must be something MUCH more scandalous. Stuff considered earlier up the thread may hold a clue.

Yes i accept what you say.May have been more to do with alcohol.

My point is that when MBM went missing John Reid was home Secretary and very probably knew GM through
the Celtic F.C. link.

Probably just another coincidence!

stillsloppingout wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Cabinet  Brown June 2007
Alistair Darling
David Miliband
Jack Straw
Andy Burnham
Geoff Hoon
Shaun Woodward
John Denham
John Hutton
James Purnell
Shaun Woodward
Douglas Alexander
Des Browne
Alan Johnson
Hilary Benn
Ed Balls
Peter Hain

Cabinet Blair May 2007

• ony Blair — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

Now continue the process and eliminate the ones the general public have never herd of .

This list is innaccurate.

JOHN REID was home sec in may 2007 when mbm died.

CHARLES CLARKE resigned as home sec in may 2006.

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:Remember, the cover up has failed to cover anything up. The suspicions and evidences are in the open. And awakening a sleeping dog in order to make sure it goes to sleep is an exercise in futility, in fact it is counter productive because the barking has set off all the other dogs in the neighbourhood. A cover up of a case already in the open is achieved first by controlling opinion, not information. Opinion steering is done in theedia. Yet the media are clearly not resolved and in concert at the dictate of a media handler (CM),  they're running scared from processes enacted by private individuals (SI/CR). A cover up could be achieved by simply letting Maddie go, formally, officially, a deeply mysterious cold case.

Perhaps the cover-up hasn't failed and is actually a spectacular success. Its only failed if you think that its limited to hiding the McCanns' involvement in their daughters death but to my mind that doesn't make any sense; why on earth would the establishment give two hoots about the McCanns? If there is a cover-up going on it is something or someone else that is being protected, not the McCanns who have just been collateral beneficiaries.

As to Madeleine's disappearance becoming an officially unsolvable cold case, there are many who believe that is exactly where we are heading. This is the exact situation we were in until the Portuguese published the case files. Even then, officialdom ignored it, helped by a press that is gagged by our repressive libel laws and possibly DA notices and/or super injunctions. It was only when Rebekah Brooks threatened the PM (and I'd love to know what Cameron was so scared of) that there was no choice but to open a review that would look thorough while at the same time distracting attention away from whatever it is that is really being covered-up

CynicAl wrote:So the purpose of interference has to be something else in which what happened to Maddie is a deeply inconvenient event which occured in the background of something else, where continued scrutiny to the Maddie case might unearth something unrelated by highly explosive.

Exactly! Why do you think its impossible that the something else is being covered up?

Ok, so we'll imagine for a second that we all live in Wonderland and I'll then concede that if the white-wash's purpose was to make a ballsed-up cover-up of an accidental crime look like a covered-up ballsed-up cover-up of an accidental crime then it was a roaring success. Clearly I'm prejudiced by definitions of the terms 'cover-up' and 'white-wash' which exist outside of Wonderland. It was my understanding that white-wash was the process of making something murky look infinitely less murky, and that cover-up was to make something which is apparent and accessible be less apparent and accessible.

There is really no need to be so patronising and offensive. Disagree with me as much as you like but I am entitled to voice my opinions without you trying to ridicule me. There's nothing wrong with being polite and respectful.

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "So the purpose of interference has to be something else in which what happened to Maddie is a deeply inconvenient event which occured in the background of something else, where continued scrutiny to the Maddie case might unearth something unrelated". If I read this correctly you're saying that the powers that be interfered to prevent something unrelated being unearthed. Substitute "uncovered" for "unearthed" and we're both saying the same thing; that there's a cover-up! How is it logical when you say it but Wonderland when I say it? Or were you attempting to be ironic?

I was neither 'so patronising'  nor offensive. If you derived those values from my posts, I apologise,  but I can't account for how you choose to interpret.  I write objectively and I do so consistently. 'Polite and respectful' are no more considerations to me than 'rude and disrespectful.' Those are emotionally led subjectivities that don't really belong in a grown up debate. 

Referring to 'Wonderland' is a common literary acknowledgement particularly in 'conspiracy' discourse. Like Carroll's world it is a metaphorical reference to a world, space and time, where normal rules and conventions, observably predictable, not only suspend but invert. Up becomes down, inside outside, white becomes black, common sense ends and is replaced with uncommon non-sense. If for example you tell me 'bankers area wonderful people, honest and not corrupted nor motivated by the acquisition of money by any means' I might say 'perhaps if this were Wonderland' but given that this is the real world I expect most things to follow observable real world conventions. 

Regarding your question, no that does not paraphrase what i was saying. If the government has run interference that's one thing - a temporal delaying or controlling of the flow of information or the acting upon that information. I do not accept that this constitutes a 'cover-up' or a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It just represents a collision with another agenda which is not principally concerned with protecting the perpetrators of MBM's demise. It reminds me of the curious comedy line, I forget who it came from: "while I was out today someone stole all my possessions from my apartment and replaced them with exact duplicates." if there's a cover up or a white wash, nothing has changed... From before to now, nothing changed. At most interference has taken place which frustrating as it may be, has neither whitewashed or covered-up, only delayed or changed the form of what those who are not privy to the full picture consider 'timely justice.' 

No one has been deprived of incriminating information, or the right to believe a version of events not controlled by the McCann' s. Those gagged by legal orders are only gagged by the mechanisms that anyone with enough money can buy, there is no evidence of extraordinary measures from agencies with gravity to make evidence go away or participate in the perpetrators avoidance of the course of justice. Each agency involved at any time appears to have pursued their individual mandate within the constraints of the background to how they came to be involved. The idea that these agencies, uk wide police forces, private agencies, citizen action groups, or intelligence services could conspire to assemble collected evidence against the Mc's by their own initiative without a due process to cause them to collaborate, in our fragile legal system, is as peculiar an idea as the one whichbsays they all connived to pretend the Mc's were innocent against all evidence.

"while I was out today someone stole all my possessions from my apartment and replaced them with exact duplicates."


That quote comes from the great Stephen Wright.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

mouse wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

mouse wrote:cynicAL wrote: "By waking a sleeping dog in order to put it back to sleep you only serve to increase the risk that people who weren' t asking questions before will ask them in the future, and you'll only get one shot at putting tlhis one to bed..."

But they didn't need to wake any dog did they.....GA wouldn't go to sleep! He had the cheek to actually want to publish a book detailing the investigation, and all the details were already out there in the files on the net. The genie was already out of the bottle - so all they could do was attempt to block the voice (GA)  who wished to bring this information to the public worldwide via his books. 

Oh, but I believe the amaral's family pet dog was put to sleep wasn't it.....Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Who? What difference does a £10m farcical reopening of an investigation change in relation to Amaral? Amaral was marginalised, a ranting obsessive seeking revenge as far as the public are concerned. If Amaral was the threat, and this was a high level conspiracy, I assure you, GA would have killed himself in a fit of depression or had a heart attack. Cost aside, the risks opened up by this phase 2 resurrection of a cold case was not a calculated risk solving any known problem that any intelligent party could not foresee ending in disaster. 

If a conspiracy exists (other than the legal crusade run by the Gruesome Twosome) to silence GA, silence is exactly what they'd have. 

So many people keep repeatedly attributing the frustration and inertia of this case to a grand powerful conspiracy effecting a cover-up or whitewash, yet no one seems to be able to explain why those powers are insufficiently powerful to make their strategy work and stick. Evidently the people enacting this grand plan were procured from the factory outlet of HenchmenRUs. The plan blueprint must be a $59 special on megaevilcoverups.com.

You can assure me that GA would have killed himself if this was a high level conspiracy? And you would know that from meeting the man, or perhaps you have insider knowlege.....????? You did appear, as Aquila said before - to hint at insider knowledge of MI5???? And why would you speculate on statements made by Mr Amaral - who is one of the few respected voices that speaks with clarity on this subject. And one who has been there from the beginning. Not like Andy - who you appear to prefer and who has not made a clear statement since he began his investigation.  

You know what - I really can't work out what side of the fence you're sitting on, all you appear to do is speculate and read what you want into what ever is released. Usually rubbishing anything or anybody else's opinion if it doesn't fit with your supposed theory of what may be happening on the ground in Portugal now. Unfortunately your arguments have a repeated theme running through them of reading something else into every piece of info that we receive at the moment - twisting everything to fit your argument. We could all do this and speculate forever more - but it wouldn't get us any closer. I prefer to deal with facts....not hopeful speculation. I'm patient too.

Sounds suspiciously like BS ramblings. IMO  

Frankly, Six Million Quid, my 'ramblings' sound infinitely more plausible and sane than most of what has been produced on this thread.

I'm working with logic, precedent and plausibility, and a bunch of the guys on here are literally playing lucky dip name association with who was in cabinet at the time, who was Scottish, and therefore who was most likely to be corruptly engaged in perverting the course of justice through association with the same football club.

Varriott wrote:"while I was out today someone stole all my possessions from my apartment and replaced them with exact duplicates."


That quote comes from the great Stephen Wright.

Thank you. YES! Genius.

aquila wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:Remember, the cover up has failed to cover anything up. The suspicions and evidences are in the open. And awakening a sleeping dog in order to make sure it goes to sleep is an exercise in futility, in fact it is counter productive because the barking has set off all the other dogs in the neighbourhood. A cover up of a case already in the open is achieved first by controlling opinion, not information. Opinion steering is done in the media. Yet the media are clearly not resolved and in concert at the dictate of a media handler (CM),  they're running scared from processes enacted by private individuals (SI/CR). A cover up could be achieved by simply letting Maddie go, formally, officially, a deeply mysterious cold case.

Perhaps the cover-up hasn't failed and is actually a spectacular success. Its only failed if you think that its limited to hiding the McCanns' involvement in their daughters death but to my mind that doesn't make any sense; why on earth would the establishment give two hoots about the McCanns? If there is a cover-up going on it is something or someone else that is being protected, not the McCanns who have just been collateral beneficiaries.

As to Madeleine's disappearance becoming an officially unsolvable cold case, there are many who believe that is exactly where we are heading. This is the exact situation we were in until the Portuguese published the case files. Even then, officialdom ignored it, helped by a press that is gagged by our repressive libel laws and possibly DA notices and/or super injunctions. It was only when Rebekah Brooks threatened the PM (and I'd love to know what Cameron was so scared of) that there was no choice but to open a review that would look thorough while at the same time distracting attention away from whatever it is that is really being covered-up

CynicAl wrote:So the purpose of interference has to be something else in which what happened to Maddie is a deeply inconvenient event which occured in the background of something else, where continued scrutiny to the Maddie case might unearth something unrelated by highly explosive.

Exactly! Why do you think its impossible that the something else is being covered up?

Ok, so we'll imagine for a second that we all live in Wonderland and I'll then concede that if the white-wash's purpose was to make a ballsed-up cover-up of an accidental crime look like a covered-up ballsed-up cover-up of an accidental crime then it was a roaring success. Clearly I'm prejudiced by definitions of the terms 'cover-up' and 'white-wash' which exist outside of Wonderland. It was my understanding that white-wash was the process of making something murky look infinitely less murky, and that cover-up was to make something which is apparent and accessible be less apparent and accessible.

There is really no need to be so patronising and offensive. Disagree with me as much as you like but I am entitled to voice my opinions without you trying to ridicule me. There's nothing wrong with being polite and respectful.

Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "So the purpose of interference has to be something else in which what happened to Maddie is a deeply inconvenient event which occured in the background of something else, where continued scrutiny to the Maddie case might unearth something unrelated". If I read this correctly you're saying that the powers that be interfered to prevent something unrelated being unearthed. Substitute "uncovered" for "unearthed" and we're both saying the same thing; that there's a cover-up! How is it logical when you say it but Wonderland when I say it? Or were you attempting to be ironic?

I wouldn't bother AndyB, some people talk in riddles, write in riddles and ridicule others on the forum. It's just the way with some folk.

@CynicAl. How come you speak of MI5 with any authority?

How come anyone on any of these threads speaks of MI5, government agencies, the police with any authority at all?

Are they all insiders?

Do I need special authority to speak?

Are my deductions and assertions any less valid than anyone else's?

Have I appealed to you on the basis of an 'authority' or have I asked for the reasonableness, objectivity and credibility of the comments I'm making to be taken into account?

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

mouse wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

mouse wrote:cynicAL wrote: "By waking a sleeping dog in order to put it back to sleep you only serve to increase the risk that people who weren' t asking questions before will ask them in the future, and you'll only get one shot at putting tlhis one to bed..."

But they didn't need to wake any dog did they.....GA wouldn't go to sleep! He had the cheek to actually want to publish a book detailing the investigation, and all the details were already out there in the files on the net. The genie was already out of the bottle - so all they could do was attempt to block the voice (GA)  who wished to bring this information to the public worldwide via his books. 

Oh, but I believe the amaral's family pet dog was put to sleep wasn't it.....Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Who? What difference does a £10m farcical reopening of an investigation change in relation to Amaral? Amaral was marginalised, a ranting obsessive seeking revenge as far as the public are concerned. If Amaral was the threat, and this was a high level conspiracy, I assure you, GA would have killed himself in a fit of depression or had a heart attack. Cost aside, the risks opened up by this phase 2 resurrection of a cold case was not a calculated risk solving any known problem that any intelligent party could not foresee ending in disaster. 

If a conspiracy exists (other than the legal crusade run by the Gruesome Twosome) to silence GA, silence is exactly what they'd have. 

So many people keep repeatedly attributing the frustration and inertia of this case to a grand powerful conspiracy effecting a cover-up or whitewash, yet no one seems to be able to explain why those powers are insufficiently powerful to make their strategy work and stick. Evidently the people enacting this grand plan were procured from the factory outlet of HenchmenRUs. The plan blueprint must be a $59 special on megaevilcoverups.com.

You can assure me that GA would have killed himself if this was a high level conspiracy? And you would know that from meeting the man, or perhaps you have insider knowlege.....????? You did appear, as Aquila said before - to hint at insider knowledge of MI5???? And why would you speculate on statements made by Mr Amaral - who is one of the few respected voices that speaks with clarity on this subject. And one who has been there from the beginning. Not like Andy - who you appear to prefer and who has not made a clear statement since he began his investigation.  

You know what - I really can't work out what side of the fence you're sitting on, all you appear to do is speculate and read what you want into what ever is released. Usually rubbishing anything or anybody else's opinion if it doesn't fit with your supposed theory of what may be happening on the ground in Portugal now. Unfortunately your arguments have a repeated theme running through them of reading something else into every piece of info that we receive at the moment - twisting everything to fit your argument. We could all do this and speculate forever more - but it wouldn't get us any closer. I prefer to deal with facts....not hopeful speculation. I'm patient too.

Sounds suspiciously like BS ramblings. IMO  

Frankly, Six Million Quid, my 'ramblings' sound infinitely more plausible and sane than most of what has been produced on this thread.

I'm working with logic, precedent and plausibility, and a bunch of the guys on here are literally playing lucky dip name association with who was in cabinet at the time, who was Scottish, and therefore who was most likely to be corruptly engaged in perverting the course of justice through association with the same football club.

Not on this thread they weren't. Told you, I don't do speculation!

mouse wrote:

cassius wrote:

cassius wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] formed the Brown ministry after being invited by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to begin a new government following the resignation of the previous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 27 June 2007. He took office as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a title he would hold until his resignation on 11 May 2010. In his inaugural cabinet Brown appointed the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] first female [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Prior to this - John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan (born 8 May 1947) was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from 2006 to 2007 - under Blairs ministry. Blair handed over to Brown in June 2007.....

John Reid must have surely involved MI5 in May 2007 in the Mc Cann case unless political interference only begain after Brown took over with Jacqui as Home Sec. Its important to know.

When did the political interference begin on Mc Cann case?  After Brown took over on June 27th?  Or whilst still under Blair?  - I believe it was a little later... under Brown?

Coincidentally John Reid is a former Chairman of Celtic Football Club. Gerry McCann was a team doctor at Celtic.

John Reid was accused of being a sex pest by Labourista Dawn Plitheroe,seriously.

Sincere apologies to all posters for the innaccuracy of my previous post above.

John Reid was accused by then Treasury Minister Dawn PRIMAROLO of being a sex pest.

This was reported in The Daily Mail on 13th may 2007 and The Mirror on the 14th may 2007.

Maybe the M15 connection was simply Reid the then Home Sec.sending one of his boys over to help out a
sometime colleage ,both having held senior positions at  CELTIC F.C.

cassius - Dawn was an mp back then for one of the Bristol boroughs. I believe John Reid made a pass at her at an event. I also believe they were both single at the time, John Reid's 1st wife having died - I can't be certain of Dawn though. Can't also be sure, but it was years later that this incident was brought up again. About the time that Gordon Browne was yearning to be PM - it was thought he didn't want Mr Reid in his way (they didn't get on and John was close with Tony Blair and a real contender for PM). By this time Mr Reid had happily remarried.  However, I wouldn't call Mr Reid a sexpest - possibly just someone who made a pass and got a knock back. Pretty poor of her, I think, to let this be brought up again, for what would appear to help Mr Brown's unchallenged leadership bid.

 He certainly made a pass .A fellow labour MP had to tell him to get off Ms Primarolo and that he was a disgusting creature.There was more than one incident.He was told anymore nonsense he was out by the revered John Smith.
As you say pretty poor for a respectable woman to mention that she was sexually harassed by a drunken ,agressive bully.

A notable absence from this Blair line-up is honey-PIE Harriet.

 She was made Secretary State for Social Security by Blair in 1997. He sacked her in 1998 for reasons which are far from clear. She re-appeared on the front benches in 2001. (That's a long time !) From thereon you can see a career pockmarked by some very self-serving behaviour and backside-covering. Too much to put here but very interesting for further insights into, what is in my opinion, a very strange personality.

She appears to have taken an interest in becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour party in 2006, which is when IIRC things must have been reaching a bit of a crescendo between Brown and Blair re their agreed baton-passing (deal done at the Curry House years before). It seems Harman was a Brown supporter; the pair had evidently been friends for years.  This would certainly tie in with her peculiar career path (more like flight path) during the Blair tenure.

I don't need to mention her 1970's career here, I'm sure. That is well-documented stuff. Notwithstanding, still a regular guest on QT and other political programmes, and not an awkward question in sight.

On a general note, we have allowed the country to be run by an assortment of sociopathic individuals and that is the crux of the problem IMO. You are dealing with too many people of zero empathy, zero responsibility-taking, zero conscience who are inveterate risk-takers, liars, thieves, fraudters, controllers on an epic scale and self-aggrandising types who seek others of their ilk and play one-upmanship games in the risk-taking stakes. They will do each other down without a blink but will stick together like the proverbial when it comes to dealing with plebs whose narrow-minded consciences are only worthy of mockery. You see it in the Mcs behaviour (they learned the social codes of that malign world very fast) and you see it in Gordon Brown and Bigot-gate.

We are a divided society. Far more than people realise, I'm afraid. Voters think they can change the barstewards but they play their election games then laugh at you as they organise the planet to suit their ever-more decadent tastes. The centralisation of power in Europe is part of the problem. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who was it said, anyone who puts themselves forward to govern should instantly be disqualified? The only way we might stand a chance of ridding ourselves of extreme sociopaths is through compulsory psycho-symmetric testing. We need to frogmarch the present shower out of high office to the blasts of Fanfare for the Common Man.

There are good souls around. We all know people in our community full of the milk of human kindness. These are the people who somehow or another, we must encourage to come forward and serve our country. Or should I say, rescue it.

ETA I would just like to say that, given the pro-McCann bias of the ruling elite and the eye-watering amounts of money spent on this case, we have every right to be putting this magnifier on politicians, both then and now - and anyone else's wider agenda for that matter. We would have to be extreme dimwits not to. That's what intelligent people do when faced with nonsense; they go back and try to find out the aetiology of the nonsense and extract a likely explanation.

Mirage wrote:A notable absence from this Blair line-up is honey-PIE Harriet.

 She was made Secretary State for Social Security by Blair in 1997. He sacked her in 1998 for reasons which are far from clear. She re-appeared on the front benches in 2001. (That's a long time !) From thereon you can see a career pockmarked by some very self-serving behaviour and backside-covering. Too much to put here but very interesting for further insights into, what is in my opinion, a very strange personality.

She appears to have taken an interest in becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour party in 2006, which is when IIRC things must have been reaching a bit of a crescendo between Brown and Blair re their agreed baton-passing (deal done at the Curry House years before). It seems Harman was a Brown supporter; the pair had evidently been friends for years.  This would certainly tie in with her peculiar career path (more like flight path) during the Blair tenure.

I don't need to mention her 1970's career here, I'm sure. That is well-documented stuff. Notwithstanding, still a regular guest on QT and other political programmes, and not an awkward question in sight.

On a general note, we have allowed the country to be run by an assortment of sociopathic individuals and that is the crux of the problem IMO. You are dealing with too many people of zero empathy, zero responsibility-taking, zero conscience who are inveterate risk-takers, liars, thieves, fraudters, controllers on an epic scale and self-aggrandising types who seek others of their ilk and play one-upmanship games in the risk-taking stakes. They will do each other down without a blink but will stick together like the proverbial when it comes to dealing with plebs whose narrow-minded consciences are only worthy of mockery. You see it in the Mcs behaviour (they learned the social codes of that malign world very fast) and you see it in Gordon Brown and Bigot-gate.

We are a divided society. Far more than people realise, I'm afraid. Voters think they can change the barstewards but they play their election games then laugh at you as they organise the planet to suit their ever-more decadent tastes. The centralisation of power in Europe is part of the problem. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Who was it said, anyone who puts themselves forward to govern should instantly be disqualified? The only way we might stand a chance of ridding ourselves of extreme sociopaths is through compulsory psycho-symmetric testing. We need to frogmarch the present shower out of high office to the blasts of Fanfare for the Common Man.

There are good souls around. We all know people in our community full of the milk of human kindness. These are the people who somehow or another, we must encourage to come forward and serve our country. Or should I say, rescue it.

Great post. That's why I cant understand many people being worried about libel. Sometimes you have to fight hard to get anywhere. If libel is used as a threat, then Im happy to play along. We will never get justice for Madeleine if we keep worrying about CR....Bollocks to them I say

cassius wrote:

mouse wrote:

cassius wrote:

cassius wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] formed the Brown ministry after being invited by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to begin a new government following the resignation of the previous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 27 June 2007. He took office as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a title he would hold until his resignation on 11 May 2010. In his inaugural cabinet Brown appointed the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] first female [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Prior to this - John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan (born 8 May 1947) was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from 2006 to 2007 - under Blairs ministry. Blair handed over to Brown in June 2007.....

John Reid must have surely involved MI5 in May 2007 in the Mc Cann case unless political interference only begain after Brown took over with Jacqui as Home Sec. Its important to know.

When did the political interference begin on Mc Cann case?  After Brown took over on June 27th?  Or whilst still under Blair?  - I believe it was a little later... under Brown?

Coincidentally John Reid is a former Chairman of Celtic Football Club. Gerry McCann was a team doctor at Celtic.

John Reid was accused of being a sex pest by Labourista Dawn Plitheroe,seriously.

Sincere apologies to all posters for the innaccuracy of my previous post above.

John Reid was accused by then Treasury Minister Dawn PRIMAROLO of being a sex pest.

This was reported in The Daily Mail on 13th may 2007 and The Mirror on the 14th may 2007.

Maybe the M15 connection was simply Reid the then Home Sec.sending one of his boys over to help out a
sometime colleage ,both having held senior positions at  CELTIC F.C.

cassius - Dawn was an mp back then for one of the Bristol boroughs. I believe John Reid made a pass at her at an event. I also believe they were both single at the time, John Reid's 1st wife having died - I can't be certain of Dawn though. Can't also be sure, but it was years later that this incident was brought up again. About the time that Gordon Browne was yearning to be PM - it was thought he didn't want Mr Reid in his way (they didn't get on and John was close with Tony Blair and a real contender for PM). By this time Mr Reid had happily remarried.  However, I wouldn't call Mr Reid a sexpest - possibly just someone who made a pass and got a knock back. Pretty poor of her, I think, to let this be brought up again, for what would appear to help Mr Brown's unchallenged leadership bid.

 He certainly made a pass .A fellow labour MP had to tell him to get off Ms Primarolo and that he was a disgusting creature.There was more than one incident.He was told anymore nonsense he was out by the revered John Smith.
As you say pretty poor for a respectable woman to mention she was sexually harassed by a drunken ,agressive bully

Cassius - I was only stating what I had remembered back at the time when this offence came to light. Do you have proof that Mr Reid was a drunken aggressive bully? I'm only asking as I heard it differently. That he admitted he'd had a bit of a drink prob at the time since his wife died of an illness, I believe cancer...And that is when he made a pass at the lady in question. That is all. I certainly wouldn't stick up for any aggressive bully...But then I don't know whether this is true or not...

SixMillionQuid wrote:Gonçalo Amaral: Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files, we will find out.
Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location. 


Well Control Risks Group were on the ground soon after the disappearance and they consist of ex security service personel. So it wouldn't surprise me if the security service were doing their own thing without telling the PJ.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A private security firm has been secretly investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for four months because her parents
feared that Portuguese police were failing properly to search for their daughter.

Iirc Dr. Amaral said it was the British (i think MI5) who pushed them to arrest Murat initially.
Clearly they wanted the case to be wound up quickly.
Might explain the sudden recollection of three of the T 9 that they'd seen him and explain a good deal more.

mouse wrote:

cassius wrote:

mouse wrote:

cassius wrote:

cassius wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] formed the Brown ministry after being invited by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to begin a new government following the resignation of the previous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 27 June 2007. He took office as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a title he would hold until his resignation on 11 May 2010. In his inaugural cabinet Brown appointed the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] first female [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Prior to this - John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan (born 8 May 1947) was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from 2006 to 2007 - under Blairs ministry. Blair handed over to Brown in June 2007.....

John Reid must have surely involved MI5 in May 2007 in the Mc Cann case unless political interference only begain after Brown took over with Jacqui as Home Sec. Its important to know.

When did the political interference begin on Mc Cann case?  After Brown took over on June 27th?  Or whilst still under Blair?  - I believe it was a little later... under Brown?

Coincidentally John Reid is a former Chairman of Celtic Football Club. Gerry McCann was a team doctor at Celtic.

John Reid was accused of being a sex pest by Labourista Dawn Plitheroe,seriously.

Sincere apologies to all posters for the innaccuracy of my previous post above.

John Reid was accused by then Treasury Minister Dawn PRIMAROLO of being a sex pest.

This was reported in The Daily Mail on 13th may 2007 and The Mirror on the 14th may 2007.

Maybe the M15 connection was simply Reid the then Home Sec.sending one of his boys over to help out a
sometime colleage ,both having held senior positions at  CELTIC F.C.

cassius - Dawn was an mp back then for one of the Bristol boroughs. I believe John Reid made a pass at her at an event. I also believe they were both single at the time, John Reid's 1st wife having died - I can't be certain of Dawn though. Can't also be sure, but it was years later that this incident was brought up again. About the time that Gordon Browne was yearning to be PM - it was thought he didn't want Mr Reid in his way (they didn't get on and John was close with Tony Blair and a real contender for PM). By this time Mr Reid had happily remarried.  However, I wouldn't call Mr Reid a sexpest - possibly just someone who made a pass and got a knock back. Pretty poor of her, I think, to let this be brought up again, for what would appear to help Mr Brown's unchallenged leadership bid.

 He certainly made a pass .A fellow labour MP had to tell him to get off Ms Primarolo and that he was a disgusting creature.There was more than one incident.He was told anymore nonsense he was out by the revered John Smith.
As you say pretty poor for a respectable woman to mention she was sexually harassed by a drunken ,agressive bully

Cassius - I was only stating what I had remembered back at the time when this offence came to light. Do you have proof that Mr Reid was a drunken aggressive bully? I'm only asking as I heard it differently. That he admitted he'd had a bit of a drink prob at the time since his wife died of an illness, I believe cancer...And that is when he made a pass at the lady in question. That is all. I certainly wouldn't stick up for any aggressive bully...But then I don't know whether this is true or not...

I don,t have the techno skills to transfer the articles here.Just google "john reid sex pest " and read the mail ,mirror and blogs on the matter.
I don,t want to give you a hard time but it is important to know what type of man was home secretary when MBM  went missing.
thank you mouse.

Too many quotes being used again, looks messy and hard to keep the flow with so many. Just use the one you are replying to if they are all long quotes.

Cassius - I'm glad you don't want to give me a hard time.

I choose not to believe everything I read in the press, and particularly as I follow politics very closely - have a keen interest - I prefer to go on what I remember at the time. Certainly won't swallow everything I read in the mirror (they were/are very pro Browne/anti Blair - the 2 camps were at war with each other so all sorts of stuff was being put out there - remember Damian McBride) - particularly with the reporting on this case so far (I mean Madeleine) - the mirror have been shocking with their reporting. I also wonder that repeating a person's name and saying they are a sex pest could be libelous.

Anyway, this all appears to be throwing the original subject off the thread topic don't you think?

I'm a bit miffed.  So I won't post anything I know nothing about.

However, I'd it worth noting FOI requests regards mdeleine, many have been forbidden as national security issues.

She's a missing child not al queda

mouse wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

mouse wrote:cynicAL wrote: "By waking a sleeping dog in order to put it back to sleep you only serve to increase the risk that people who weren' t asking questions before will ask them in the future, and you'll only get one shot at putting tlhis one to bed..."

But they didn't need to wake any dog did they.....GA wouldn't go to sleep! He had the cheek to actually want to publish a book detailing the investigation, and all the details were already out there in the files on the net. The genie was already out of the bottle - so all they could do was attempt to block the voice (GA)  who wished to bring this information to the public worldwide via his books. 

Oh, but I believe the amaral's family pet dog was put to sleep wasn't it.....Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Who? What difference does a £10m farcical reopening of an investigation change in relation to Amaral? Amaral was marginalised, a ranting obsessive seeking revenge as far as the public are concerned. If Amaral was the threat, and this was a high level conspiracy, I assure you, GA would have killed himself in a fit of depression or had a heart attack. Cost aside, the risks opened up by this phase 2 resurrection of a cold case was not a calculated risk solving any known problem that any intelligent party could not foresee ending in disaster. 

If a conspiracy exists (other than the legal crusade run by the Gruesome Twosome) to silence GA, silence is exactly what they'd have. 

So many people keep repeatedly attributing the frustration and inertia of this case to a grand powerful conspiracy effecting a cover-up or whitewash, yet no one seems to be able to explain why those powers are insufficiently powerful to make their strategy work and stick. Evidently the people enacting this grand plan were procured from the factory outlet of HenchmenRUs. The plan blueprint must be a $59 special on megaevilcoverups.com.

You can assure me that GA would have killed himself if this was a high level conspiracy? And you would know that from meeting the man, or perhaps you have insider knowlege.....????? You did appear, as Aquila said before - to hint at insider knowledge of MI5???? And why would you speculate on statements made by Mr Amaral - who is one of the few respected voices that speaks with clarity on this subject. And one who has been there from the beginning. Not like Andy - who you appear to prefer and who has not made a clear statement since he began his investigation.  

You know what - I really can't work out what side of the fence you're sitting on, all you appear to do is speculate and read what you want into what ever is released. Usually rubbishing anything or anybody else's opinion if it doesn't fit with your supposed theory of what may be happening on the ground in Portugal now. Unfortunately your arguments have a repeated theme running through them of reading something else into every piece of info that we receive at the moment - twisting everything to fit your argument. We could all do this and speculate forever more - but it wouldn't get us any closer. I prefer to deal with facts....not hopeful speculation. I'm patient too.

Are you aware of the discovery in London of a dead GCHQ operative who had been on secondment to, IIRC, the NSA and was found in a security services safehouse, in the bath tub, dead - oh, and folded in two, zipped up in a holdall bag, with his possessions spread out on the bed like they'd been catalogued?

Are you aware of any number of instances in which so-called 'conspiracy theorists' point to the audacious and mysterious deaths of all kinds of 'sensitive' individuals, whistleblowers, agents, double agents?

Are you aware of the demise of Daniel Morgan? That's an issue close to home for SY.

THAT is what a 'high level conspiracy' looks like when it runs in to people who are an informational liability and cannot be controlled. It does not spend £10m creating fancy set dressings to make them seem altogether more harmless, it does not run appeasement campaigns at great expense over large spans of time to try to keep them mostly harmless. It eliminates them. Cheaper. More effective. Less to come back on you.

Which reminds me of a story...

A spanish farmer went racing out of his house one day, hearing a horrible sound of a distressed animal. Approaching his well, he followed the echoing sound to a tell-tale section of the wall which was collapsed and looking down into the depths he could make out the shape of his faithful donkey making a pitiable din. Fearing that the animal must surely have injured itself terribly in the fall, the farmer began to consider what he could possibly do. He could not lift the animal, he had no ladder long enough to reach it, no rope strong enough to make a pulley, and certainly the beast was going to suffer all day and all night until it eventually died of its injuries or starvation. His rifle had been loaned to a neighbour, and he couldn't be bothered trekking down the road in the heat and the dust to get it. Imagining that this could go on for some time, and knowing that there was no other way, the farmer fetched his shovel and began to dump the nearby cartload of earth into the well on top of the donkey. To his surprise the donkey stopped braying, shook the shovel loads of earth from its shoulders, and stood on top of the slowly growing mound. Amused, the farmer kept on tossing down shovels full of earth on top of the beast, and each time it did the same thing: shook off the earth and stood on the slowly building pile. After a solid half a day of shovelling the donkey climbed out of the well and trotted back into the farmyard, apparently none-the-worse for the ordeal. The moral of the story is that when you're in a hopeless stew, facing impossible odds, and even the ones you call on to help you do nothing but shovel dirt and muck onto your back in the hope of shutting you up, just shake off that dirt and muck, stamp it into the ground beneath you, and you will eventually rise up above it.

The farmer's wife went looking for him at suppertime that day, could not see any sign at all. Glancing in the partially repaired well, she was shocked to see the body of her husband at the bottom. When they retrieved his corpse the village doctor was surprised to find a surprisingly deep set of teeth impressions sunk into the man's shoulder, which remain a mystery to this day. The moral of THAT story is that whenever you try to cover your ass, it will always come back to bite you.

You can't predict what the donkey will do with each attempt you make to end his suffering and shut him up. He might not take the hint and lay down and die. He might climb up on the help you give him. He might do the last thing you expect him to do. And while he's still around, he could do anything at all, and you wouldn't be able to predict it any more than you could stop it.

These are anecdotes. They represent the simple little things in life. The convenient little things.

In the real world, a high level conspiracy which is prepared to pervert the course of justice in a case of the wrongful death of a CHILD and the wilful covering up and dodging justice of the perpetrators could only be responding to the MOST SERIOUS breach of security. And the most serious breaches of security are the ones that don't get left to gentle persuasion, mutual back-scratching, vague influence, subtle suggestions, delicate steering, haphazard PR, and the like. They are the ones that get solved with unfortunate accidents, stray bullets, needles between the toes. There's no messing around with this. Effective damage management calls for it.

What amazes me is that so many participants here want to call upon the notion of the high level conspiracy theory, and they have tremendous imagination for doing so. But having done so, they suddenly forget that high level conspiracy theories involve effective methods, brutal snipping of loose ends, a body count if there's any doubt at all, the control of the flow of information by any and all means. They've got imagination for the idea... but then no imagination for how that would actually look in practice. And the end result is a high level conspiracy that looks like it was executed by a bunch of seven year olds who were inspired by misunderstanding all their dad's favourite thrillers.

I find that bizarre.

It either IS a high level conspiracy, with everything that comes with it. Or it isn't.

There's no consistent evidence to support the former. And all available evidence supports the latter.

The reason I speculate on Mr Amaral, is the same reason I speculate about all the 'high level conspiracy' theorists in this case. There is no consistent evidence of a high level conspiracy. If MI5 wanted this case shut down and never seeing the light of day again, it would be so. If there was a diplomatic imperitive to do it, it would be so. No petitions, no tweets, no facebooking, no nothing, would ever cause this case to be resurrected, tampered with, dabbled with, made more obvious, made worse, made more provocative, made more inflammatory or anything else. The ends would be tied off, the case would be locked away, the trail would go cold, a handful of people would continue to contend, but it would fade into the mists of time, wheeled out only by dedicated conspiracy theorists, and left where it can be relegated to parity with Icke's reptilians. Bloggers would be being discredited, not by other bloggers, but by people you don't ever want to mess with. The message would be out there, and clear. The media would be harmonised and utterly disinterested. That's not the case.

Mr Amaral, and I have a massive amount of respect for him, could well be in danger of stepping beyond what he knows, and into what he doesn't know, in order to explain the reticence of his own government to finally close book on this case. We've seen agents and double agents in times past spill the beans selectively on all kinds of things. No one knows really how to take Snowden or Assange - are they part of a dupe, have they been set up to leak what they've leaked, are they being handled and so on. Mr Amaral is weaving a narrative (and I can understand the urge to do so) about a high level conspiracy and the involvement of MI5 as if these are all powerful rulers of the universe for whom simply a glance at the government of a foreign nation is enough to cause immediate capitulation. If that's the case, then our country has curious influence indeed, influence which is not apparent in very many other ways. But what Mr Amaral is NOT doing, is he's NOT naming and shaming his own people. We're all here, openly critical of our politico's, naming their names, speculating about their wicked interjections, suggesting the very worst of them. Mr Amaral MUST know people in the PJ, He MUST know people in Portuguese Intelligence. He MUST know people in the government. Surely he has allies in those agencies. Surely he is not alone in promoting this line of thinking that he has. He MUST have support. So where are the whistleblowers confirming what he's said? Apparently MI5 are so unsecretive that Mr Amaral knows exactly what they're doing and he can talk in veiled terms about what cards he knows they're holding. But where is the continued leak of supporting information? Why no Portuguese figures named and shamed? Why are there no details of what went on in his own country, just speculations about what went on over here.

I'm not saying he's entirely wrong. I'm stating that I think there's a fundamental error in not distinguishing between pragmatic interference, and dogmatic conspirance to pervert the course of justice.

I'm stating that having MI5, the government intelligence gathering agency monitoring the scene, asking the SY lead detective what he detected is no more unusual than the likelihood that GCHQ (or more likely a certain facility in North Yorkshire) if they did not already have phone captures associated with the T9, almost certainly did within hours of the story breaking. It is extraordinary to us, but routine to government. The whole purpose of having a myriad of intelligence services is expressly to know what's happening and who's involved before a two-bit journalist finds out and publishes it on the front of a tabloid; to anticipate, to respond if necessary.

Is it the tail or the dog that wags?

If your idea of a successful high level conspiracy involving government and intelligence agencies is that no information disappears, no investigation vanishes, no witnesses are disappeared, no fractious and egomaniacal personalities are laid to rest where permanent silence can be assured, and in fact where those that you most want to cause to be put away, silenced and forgotten about actually parade around like they have the keys to the kingdom and dictate to YOU that you'll resurrect the 'dead' investigation, play with it, then put it back on ice for them while they fund raise for their lifestyle and ponce around with fancy law firms suing the blogosphere and posing with their PR agents - well... that's one strange high level conspiracy. I wish all of them were as ineffective and downright counter-productive as that.

And then you go making insinuations. 'Prefer Andy.' 'Don't know what side of the fence...'

Ask me. I'll tell you. I think Redwood looks like a clown. I accept that he may be playing a very clever game. I'm prepared to give him a very long length of rope to prove himself. And I'll cast final judgement if he doesn't. Nothing is spoiling by waiting. As for a fence... I'm not on either side of a fence. I'm on the side of evidence. I'm on the side of logic. I'm on the side of rationality and reason.

tigger wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:Gonçalo Amaral: Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files, we will find out.
Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location. 


Well Control Risks Group were on the ground soon after the disappearance and they consist of ex security service personel. So it wouldn't surprise me if the security service were doing their own thing without telling the PJ.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A private security firm has been secretly investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for four months because her parents
feared that Portuguese police were failing properly to search for their daughter.

Iirc Dr. Amaral said it was the British (i think MI5) who pushed them to arrest Murat initially.
Clearly they wanted the case to be wound up quickly.
Might explain the sudden recollection of three of the T 9 that they'd seen him and explain a good deal more.

Is that in the files?

The files actually contain the information that the PJ's investigation was being badged and directed by a representative of MI5, who were naming their own 'prime suspects' and demanding their arbitrary arrest? Did the files mention what evidence was presented for MI5's insistence? Did the director of the PJ consider that his agency's mandate was to do whatever British Military Intelligence told him to do, and to throw an investigation in order to oblige?

Didn't someone also say that it was the British Police who first regarded the parent's as prime suspects?

So how many agencies were actually on the ground in Portugal directing the PJ?

I'm surprised at Amaral... He seems like a man who would tell British Military Intelligence to take a running jump and wait for due process.

Hmmm. I'm playing catch up with posts, but now I'm reading things that are only confirming my fears about the suspension of logic.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons or loose women.

I thought I'd heard it all...

Until I read through some of the posts.

It was bad enough that we're throwing darts at a list of the names of those in cabinet in 2007 and playing six degrees of Gerry McCann with them - talk about clutching at straws.

But then I detected more of a hint of the suggestion that this was a high level cover-up because the government are trying to hide the fact that a high level government minister was in PDL, bonking his brains out on a swinging holiday at OC, and was there when it all happened (no suggestion if he was involved) and it is all covered up because he doesn't want anyone to know he was there.

If he didn't want anyone to know he was there, why go to OC with Joe Public and his wife? Who was he going to bonk? Would he wear a hood? Would our intelligence services not know where he was? Could someone recognise him? Would anyone be able to resist a kiss and tell?

Surely high level government ministers can indulge their sexual fantasies in private villas on private islands flown by private jet facilitated by private individuals and entirely managed... IN PRIVATE.

No?

Or am I just being too unreal?

CynicAl wrote:

tigger wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:Gonçalo Amaral: Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files, we will find out.
Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location. 


Well Control Risks Group were on the ground soon after the disappearance and they consist of ex security service personel. So it wouldn't surprise me if the security service were doing their own thing without telling the PJ.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A private security firm has been secretly investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for four months because her parents
feared that Portuguese police were failing properly to search for their daughter.

Iirc Dr. Amaral said it was the British (i think MI5) who pushed them to arrest Murat initially.
Clearly they wanted the case to be wound up quickly.
Might explain the sudden recollection of three of the T 9 that they'd seen him and explain a good deal more.

Is that in the files?

The files actually contain the information that the PJ's investigation was being badged and directed by a representative of MI5, who were naming their own 'prime suspects' and demanding their arbitrary arrest? Did the files mention what evidence was presented for MI5's insistence? Did the director of the PJ consider that his agency's mandate was to do whatever British Military Intelligence told him to do, and to throw an investigation in order to oblige?

Didn't someone also say that it was the British Police who first regarded the parent's as prime suspects?

So how many agencies were actually on the ground in Portugal directing the PJ?

I'm surprised at Amaral... He seems like a man who would tell British Military Intelligence to take a running jump and wait for due process.

Show me one video of anyone who stayed there in resort talking about a missing girl..Everyone must have been gagged....WHY?
This is a definite cover up...Absolutely sure of it

CynicAl wrote:

mouse wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

mouse wrote:cynicAL wrote: "By waking a sleeping dog in order to put it back to sleep you only serve to increase the risk that people who weren' t asking questions before will ask them in the future, and you'll only get one shot at putting tlhis one to bed..."

But they didn't need to wake any dog did they.....GA wouldn't go to sleep! He had the cheek to actually want to publish a book detailing the investigation, and all the details were already out there in the files on the net. The genie was already out of the bottle - so all they could do was attempt to block the voice (GA)  who wished to bring this information to the public worldwide via his books. 

Oh, but I believe the amaral's family pet dog was put to sleep wasn't it.....Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Who? What difference does a £10m farcical reopening of an investigation change in relation to Amaral? Amaral was marginalised, a ranting obsessive seeking revenge as far as the public are concerned. If Amaral was the threat, and this was a high level conspiracy, I assure you, GA would have killed himself in a fit of depression or had a heart attack. Cost aside, the risks opened up by this phase 2 resurrection of a cold case was not a calculated risk solving any known problem that any intelligent party could not foresee ending in disaster. 

If a conspiracy exists (other than the legal crusade run by the Gruesome Twosome) to silence GA, silence is exactly what they'd have. 

So many people keep repeatedly attributing the frustration and inertia of this case to a grand powerful conspiracy effecting a cover-up or whitewash, yet no one seems to be able to explain why those powers are insufficiently powerful to make their strategy work and stick. Evidently the people enacting this grand plan were procured from the factory outlet of HenchmenRUs. The plan blueprint must be a $59 special on megaevilcoverups.com.

You can assure me that GA would have killed himself if this was a high level conspiracy? And you would know that from meeting the man, or perhaps you have insider knowlege.....????? You did appear, as Aquila said before - to hint at insider knowledge of MI5???? And why would you speculate on statements made by Mr Amaral - who is one of the few respected voices that speaks with clarity on this subject. And one who has been there from the beginning. Not like Andy - who you appear to prefer and who has not made a clear statement since he began his investigation.  

You know what - I really can't work out what side of the fence you're sitting on, all you appear to do is speculate and read what you want into what ever is released. Usually rubbishing anything or anybody else's opinion if it doesn't fit with your supposed theory of what may be happening on the ground in Portugal now. Unfortunately your arguments have a repeated theme running through them of reading something else into every piece of info that we receive at the moment - twisting everything to fit your argument. We could all do this and speculate forever more - but it wouldn't get us any closer. I prefer to deal with facts....not hopeful speculation. I'm patient too.

Are you aware of the discovery in London of a dead GCHQ operative who had been on secondment to, IIRC, the NSA and was found in a security services safehouse, in the bath tub, dead - oh, and folded in two, zipped up in a holdall bag, with his possessions spread out on the bed like they'd been catalogued?

Are you aware of any number of instances in which so-called 'conspiracy theorists' point to the audacious and mysterious deaths of all kinds of 'sensitive' individuals, whistleblowers, agents, double agents?

Are you aware of the demise of Daniel Morgan? That's an issue close to home for SY.

THAT is what a 'high level conspiracy' looks like when it runs in to people who are an informational liability and cannot be controlled. It does not spend £10m creating fancy set dressings to make them seem altogether more harmless, it does not run appeasement campaigns at great expense over large spans of time to try to keep them mostly harmless. It eliminates them. Cheaper. More effective. Less to come back on you.

Which reminds me of a story...

A spanish farmer went racing out of his house one day, hearing a horrible sound of a distressed animal. Approaching his well, he followed the echoing sound to a tell-tale section of the wall which was collapsed and looking down into the depths he could make out the shape of his faithful donkey making a pitiable din. Fearing that the animal must surely have injured itself terribly in the fall, the farmer began to consider what he could possibly do. He could not lift the animal, he had no ladder long enough to reach it, no rope strong enough to make a pulley, and certainly the beast was going to suffer all day and all night until it eventually died of its injuries or starvation. His rifle had been loaned to a neighbour, and he couldn't be bothered trekking down the road in the heat and the dust to get it. Imagining that this could go on for some time, and knowing that there was no other way, the farmer fetched his shovel and began to dump the nearby cartload of earth into the well on top of the donkey. To his surprise the donkey stopped braying, shook the shovel loads of earth from its shoulders, and stood on top of the slowly growing mound. Amused, the farmer kept on tossing down shovels full of earth on top of the beast, and each time it did the same thing: shook off the earth and stood on the slowly building pile. After a solid half a day of shovelling the donkey climbed out of the well and trotted back into the farmyard, apparently none-the-worse for the ordeal. The moral of the story is that when you're in a hopeless stew, facing impossible odds, and even the ones you call on to help you do nothing but shovel dirt and muck onto your back in the hope of shutting you up, just shake off that dirt and muck, stamp it into the ground beneath you, and you will eventually rise up above it.

The farmer's wife went looking for him at suppertime that day, could not see any sign at all. Glancing in the partially repaired well, she was shocked to see the body of her husband at the bottom. When they retrieved his corpse the village doctor was surprised to find a surprisingly deep set of teeth impressions sunk into the man's shoulder, which remain a mystery to this day. The moral of THAT story is that whenever you try to cover your ass, it will always come back to bite you.

You can't predict what the donkey will do with each attempt you make to end his suffering and shut him up. He might not take the hint and lay down and die. He might climb up on the help you give him. He might do the last thing you expect him to do. And while he's still around, he could do anything at all, and you wouldn't be able to predict it any more than you could stop it.

These are anecdotes. They represent the simple little things in life. The convenient little things.

In the real world, a high level conspiracy which is prepared to pervert the course of justice in a case of the wrongful death of a CHILD and the wilful covering up and dodging justice of the perpetrators could only be responding to the MOST SERIOUS breach of security. And the most serious breaches of security are the ones that don't get left to gentle persuasion, mutual back-scratching, vague influence, subtle suggestions, delicate steering, haphazard PR, and the like. They are the ones that get solved with unfortunate accidents, stray bullets, needles between the toes. There's no messing around with this. Effective damage management calls for it.

What amazes me is that so many participants here want to call upon the notion of the high level conspiracy theory, and they have tremendous imagination for doing so. But having done so, they suddenly forget that high level conspiracy theories involve effective methods, brutal snipping of loose ends, a body count if there's any doubt at all, the control of the flow of information by any and all means. They've got imagination for the idea... but then no imagination for how that would actually look in practice. And the end result is a high level conspiracy that looks like it was executed by a bunch of seven year olds who were inspired by misunderstanding all their dad's favourite thrillers.

I find that bizarre.

It either IS a high level conspiracy, with everything that comes with it. Or it isn't.

There's no consistent evidence to support the former. And all available evidence supports the latter.

The reason I speculate on Mr Amaral, is the same reason I speculate about all the 'high level conspiracy' theorists in this case. There is no consistent evidence of a high level conspiracy. If MI5 wanted this case shut down and never seeing the light of day again, it would be so. If there was a diplomatic imperitive to do it, it would be so. No petitions, no tweets, no facebooking, no nothing, would ever cause this case to be resurrected, tampered with, dabbled with, made more obvious, made worse, made more provocative, made more inflammatory or anything else. The ends would be tied off, the case would be locked away, the trail would go cold, a handful of people would continue to contend, but it would fade into the mists of time, wheeled out only by dedicated conspiracy theorists, and left where it can be relegated to parity with Icke's reptilians. Bloggers would be being discredited, not by other bloggers, but by people you don't ever want to mess with. The message would be out there, and clear. The media would be harmonised and utterly disinterested. That's not the case.

Mr Amaral, and I have a massive amount of respect for him, could well be in danger of stepping beyond what he knows, and into what he doesn't know, in order to explain the reticence of his own government to finally close book on this case. We've seen agents and double agents in times past spill the beans selectively on all kinds of things. No one knows really how to take Snowden or Assange - are they part of a dupe, have they been set up to leak what they've leaked, are they being handled and so on. Mr Amaral is weaving a narrative (and I can understand the urge to do so) about a high level conspiracy and the involvement of MI5 as if these are all powerful rulers of the universe for whom simply a glance at the government of a foreign nation is enough to cause immediate capitulation. If that's the case, then our country has curious influence indeed, influence which is not apparent in very many other ways. But what Mr Amaral is NOT doing, is he's NOT naming and shaming his own people. We're all here, openly critical of our politico's, naming their names, speculating about their wicked interjections, suggesting the very worst of them. Mr Amaral MUST know people in the PJ, He MUST know people in Portuguese Intelligence. He MUST know people in the government. Surely he has allies in those agencies. Surely he is not alone in promoting this line of thinking that he has. He MUST have support. So where are the whistleblowers confirming what he's said? Apparently MI5 are so unsecretive that Mr Amaral knows exactly what they're doing and he can talk in veiled terms about what cards he knows they're holding. But where is the continued leak of supporting information? Why no Portuguese figures named and shamed? Why are there no details of what went on in his own country, just speculations about what went on over here.

I'm not saying he's entirely wrong. I'm stating that I think there's a fundamental error in not distinguishing between pragmatic interference, and dogmatic conspirance to pervert the course of justice.

I'm stating that having MI5, the government intelligence gathering agency monitoring the scene, asking the SY lead detective what he detected is no more unusual than the likelihood that GCHQ (or more likely a certain facility in North Yorkshire) if they did not already have phone captures associated with the T9, almost certainly did within hours of the story breaking. It is extraordinary to us, but routine to government. The whole purpose of having a myriad of intelligence services is expressly to know what's happening and who's involved before a two-bit journalist finds out and publishes it on the front of a tabloid; to anticipate, to respond if necessary.

Is it the tail or the dog that wags?

If your idea of a successful high level conspiracy involving government and intelligence agencies is that no information disappears, no investigation vanishes, no witnesses are disappeared, no fractious and egomaniacal personalities are laid to rest where permanent silence can be assured, and in fact where those that you most want to cause to be put away, silenced and forgotten about actually parade around like they have the keys to the kingdom and dictate to YOU that you'll resurrect the 'dead' investigation, play with it, then put it back on ice for them while they fund raise for their lifestyle and ponce around with fancy law firms suing the blogosphere and posing with their PR agents - well... that's one strange high level conspiracy. I wish all of them were as ineffective and downright counter-productive as that.

And then you go making insinuations. 'Prefer Andy.' 'Don't know what side of the fence...'

Ask me. I'll tell you. I think Redwood looks like a clown. I accept that he may be playing a very clever game. I'm prepared to give him a very long length of rope to prove himself. And I'll cast final judgement if he doesn't. Nothing is spoiling by waiting. As for a fence... I'm not on either side of a fence. I'm on the side of evidence. I'm on the side of logic. I'm on the side of rationality and reason.

What a fantastic piece of writing. I totally agree that it's either a conspiracy or it's not. I am convinced that the McCann's know what happened to their daughter. Putting the dogs aside, for the moment, logic tells me that when something as tragic as "losing" a child happens, one doesn't forget what they did immediately after discovering that the child is no longer there. Add to this the "jemmied" windows that turned out not to have been jemmied. Kate's refusal to answer questions, and the list goes on. It has been gone over so many times over the past 7 years, so I won't repeat them all here.

As for my thoughts, they sway from the simple to the complicated. Was it just an accident and they hid the body? No body often means no case, hence the setting up of the fund to fight anyone who tried to steer away from the McCann propaganda. With such powerful backers on the McCann's side, God help anyone who tried to bring this to court without a water-tight case. It would be shot down in flames. Or, is there something far more sinister, and this saga is far too big for anyone to handle? Your guess is as good as mine.

CynicAl wrote:Hmmm. I'm playing catch up with posts, but now I'm reading things that are only confirming my fears about the suspension of logic.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons or loose women.

I thought I'd heard it all...

Until I read through some of the posts.

It was bad enough that we're throwing darts at a list of the names of those in cabinet in 2007 and playing six degrees of Gerry McCann with them - talk about clutching at straws.

But then I detected more of a hint of the suggestion that this was a high level cover-up because the government are trying to hide the fact that a high level government minister was in PDL, bonking his brains out on a swinging holiday at OC, and was there when it all happened (no suggestion if he was involved) and it is all covered up because he doesn't want anyone to know he was there.

If he didn't want anyone to know he was there, why go to OC with Joe Public and his wife? Who was he going to bonk? Would he wear a hood? Would our intelligence services not know where he was? Could someone recognise him? Would anyone be able to resist a kiss and tell?

Surely high level government ministers can indulge their sexual fantasies in private villas on private islands flown by private jet facilitated by private individuals and entirely managed... IN PRIVATE.

No?

Or am I just being too unreal?

What in your opinion was the role of Clarence Mitchel? Do you suppose he just decided on a whim to go to Portugal and assist the McCann's due to his altruistic nature?

mouse wrote:Cassius - I'm glad you don't want to give me a hard time.

I choose not to believe everything I read in the press, and particularly as I follow politics very closely - have a keen interest - I prefer to go on what I remember at the time. Certainly won't swallow everything I read in the mirror (they were/are very pro Browne/anti Blair - the 2 camps were at war with each other so all sorts of stuff was being put out there - remember Damian McBride) - particularly with the reporting on this case so far (I mean Madeleine) - the mirror have been shocking with their reporting. I also wonder that repeating a person's name and saying they are a sex pest could be libelous.

Anyway, this all appears to be throwing the original subject off the thread topic don't you think?

He had plenty of oportunity to sue on the allegations at the time but instead chose to withdraw from the labour party leadership contest with Gordon Brown once the stories about him came out.

John Reid was Home Secretary at the time of death of MBM and in overall control of M15.

John Reid had a long term association with Celtic F.C. in Glasgow becoming Chairman in late 2007.

Gerry McCann is a one time employee of Celtic F.C.

Glasgow is a village ,there is a real probability that GM  and John Reid were aquainted or at least had mutual associates.

Is it stretching the imagination to think that when MBM went missing Reid simply instructed an operative to monitor the situation as he genuinely believed the daughter of a friend had been abducted and he wanted to make sure everything possible was being done.

In other words no great cover up just a long drawn out search for the truth.

Cassius / SSO : Up to date lists for both Blair exiting and Brown inaugural  -can we start to eliMinate by editing the lists and perhaps eliminating THOSE WHO IT CANNOT BE

Blair Ministry 2007:

May 2006 to June 2007

• Tony Blair — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and Lord Chancellor -may 2007 becomes sec of state for justice.
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs -MAY 2006 BECOMES LEADER OF HOUSE OF COMMONS
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — Secretary of State for Defence - becomes Home Secretary
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - may 2006 becomes foreign secretary -
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — Secretary of State for Trade and Industry - becomes sec of state for education and skills
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and Secretary of State for Scotland - becomes Sec of SAtate for TRade and Industry
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - resigns Nov 2005 replaced by John Hutton
  
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) - BECOMES SECRETARY OF STATE FOR w AND pENSIONS nOV 2005
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and Party Chair -becomes Sec of State for defense
  
  
• Douglas Alexander - sec of state for transport
  
• Hazel Blears - minister without portfolio 
  
• Stephen Timms - cheif Sec to Treasury
  
• Jacqui Smith  - Parliamentary sec to Treasury
  
• Ruth Kelly Sec of state for Communities
  
• Hialry Armstrong becomes Parliament Sec to Treasury 
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] — [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

Gordon Brown June 2007
naugural Cabinet: 27 June 2007 – 24 January 2008
[th]Office(s)[/th][th]Officeholder[/th]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Also attending Cabinet meetings
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] PC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] PC QC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] PC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Also attending Cabinet meetings when their Ministerial responsibilities are on the agenda
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	The Rt Hon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] MP

Cassius / SSO - so we have a list of individuals  - who can we eliminate ?

Thank you HelenMeg,great work.This new list confirms my info about j.reid

Interesting that Amaral is now talking about MI5/6 in all this (unless I missed it before?)

IIRC, weren't the McCanns driven home by security services or some such and Kate mentioned it in her book?

With what GA says in this interview that SY/MI5/6 were there from the beginning surely means something completely separate, but connected somehow, is at play?

Maybe some security service employees were on holiday there at the time? 

The UK public will no doubt be left in ignorance of Mr Amaral's recent interview or at least if it is reported, it will, imo, not show Mr Amaral in a good light. 

I read on here earlier that the government monitors public opinion ...... in that case, when the files were released by the Portuguise, all our government had to do was allow them to be published here in the UK - along, with GM's  blogs at the time of his little girl's disappearance,  ( they are a real eye opener imo)

Imo, if the UK public had been given the chance to judge for itself by reading what was in the above files and GM's blogs  -  the government would have had a very clear and more realistic picture on how the public feel about this case ......as it is, UK opinion has been based mainly on the onesided version that the main stream media has been publishing for the last 7 years