Friday, September 16, 2011


TV3 chiefs refuse to hand over search cash


TV3 bosses have frozen a bank account holding thousands of euro raised by the Irish public to help in the search for missing Madeleine McCann.
Almost EUR25,000 was donated by broken-hearted viewers after the station launched its own appeal in June to raise cash to help find the toddler.
But the cash has since remained untouched in TV3's Madeleine McCann fund bank account in AIB headquarters in Ballsbridge, Dublin.
TV3 is now refusing to pass on the cash to the official Madeleine's Fund set up by her parents - because it is not a recognised charity.
And a spokesman for TV3 also admitted the cash raised may never go towards the fund.
He revealed: "It is the intention of TV3 to hold the funds in the account until a properly registered and recognised charity for Madeleine McCann is established.
"If such a charity is not established TV3 will either donate the funds to a registered charity in the area of child abduction and protection, or we may seek the views of the donors on how to disperse the funds."
The fund, which had the backing of the entire station including presenters Lorraine Keane, Mark Cagney and Alan Hughes, was launched in a huge wave of publicity on June 1 - three weeks after Maddy, four, vanished.
It was sparked after what a spokesman for TV3 called "intense viewership interest" in the story of the little girl who disappeared from her parent's apartment in Portugal more than six months ago.
The appeal lasted eight days and featured a number of special TV bulletins dedicated to the campaign to find Madeleine.

Thousands of donations rolled in from across the country, many conscious of the fact Maddy had strong Irish connections and that her grandmother Eileen McCann is from Co Donegal.
Madeleine's disappearance also regularly featured on the station's main news bulletins.
TV3's Lorraine Keane, left, also featured at the 50-day anniversary of little Maddy's disappearance at which hundreds of yellow balloons were released.
The host said: "Like so many people I am devastated by the abduction of little Madeleine McCann.
"As a mother, I can only imagine what her parents are going through."
TV3 chiefs now face a backlash for not telling viewers the cash had been frozen and for not releasing the money so it could be used to actively help in the search.
And despite the cash freeze the TV3 Madeleine McCann Fund Account No 08632098 remains open for donations.
A spokesman for AIB said the account was still active and in a position to accept donations.
Since depositing the cash raised, EUR24,345, the fund has also built up interest which has been added to the original fund.
A TV3 spokesman added that if necessary it would consult with its viewers if station bosses decided they were not giving the cash to the Madeleine's Fund.
He said: "We may seek the views of the donors as to the most appropriate manner in which to disperse the accumulated funds.
"TV3 will act in accordance with best practice in the circumstances."
Madeleine's Fund has so far raised E1.57million since it was set up.
The fund - formally called Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd - is not a registered charity but a not-for-profit company because its scope is not wide enough to get charity status.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Ashes to Ashes.


Júlia Pinheiro JP Program "Dear Julia"
applauseclip: In the family home there are many cases of pedophilia and abuse of minors, many fail to be reported, but only last year , 70 arrests were made. This year through the month of August 56 people had been arrested ... ... ... ... ...
JP: I have someone here with me who has certainly encountered many of these situations, and he is in the process of preparing a book called "Life without defense, disappearance, abduction and abuse of children in Portugal." 
It's Goncalo Amaral , please give him a warm welcome.'
JP: Now, let's talk about another kind of worry. Stay tuned right now because there are things that do not happen only to others.
JP: 'Why did you feel the need to write a book on this subject?'GA: Well, both the severity of the issue and also because there is very little information on this subject, little has been done. As I have said here several times, we are reacting to cases. The Police and the institutions, they try to give answers but we need to go further, we need to study and try to see why this happens .My book seeks to answer why so many children disappear.Children are vulnerable to victimization and are targets for abuse, mistreatment, neglect, and then they disappear, they are also abducted and abused.JP: Goncalo Amaral has been very closely linked to cases of children who have disappeared, never to reappear. One has to do with the case of ... .. the case is solved, the Joana case, is it not?GA: There have been other cases ....JP: These cases very often bring the media when a disappearance or abduction is reported,  but almost always there is a history of sexual abuse.GA: Yes, there is , always,  and even in the case of Joana that raises an important question as to how do we detect these cases and the case is detected by school teachers alerting the National Commission for the Protection of Children and Youth at risk. Certain behaviour in a child raises suspicions of abuse,  abuse was then confirmed , but she did not confirm who was sexually abusing her, she was also the subject of neglect.This issue of family and school is not only so we can detect cases but to prevent the formation ....JP: In this aspect we have to rely on the teachers and the people who interact with very concrectamente ...GA: Yes, because this is a very multidisciplinary. One area that involves psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, technicians, social security, police, magistrates and nobody can say that this is the solution. For example, I might say, as the Police, the solution is this but the matter must be discussed with everyone.It is an area that involves people from various areas of intervention because in fact the problem is not just a police or court case. When we watch these cases for judicial intervention it is the last thing that must happen. Prevention and education is what should have happened first. But this does not happen in our country, it does not exist.If you notice the schools do not educate anyone .... look, to give an example:nobody is prepared to be a father. Suddenly one becomes a father and suddenly there is a  child, you can learn to change diapers but do not learn to be a father.It seems that part of us cannot be taught. Today,  this concept of being a father was to have a son, plant a tree and write a book, today is the exact opposite. First plant a tree, write a book then later, have a son. There are things that are being changed in our society and it seems that we are not  following ....JP ... ... ... ... ... .. is also a lawyer, he has also managed to defend someone like a paedophile in court?GA: I can tell you that I recently entered a stage and advocacydo not give to Attorney ... though it was not the ideal way. It's hard.JP But Dr.... here just talking (about pedophilia case) has a point when he speaks of police as to how involved. GA: I remember one case in the Azores, where my colleague who was preparing a final report ... while doing the report he was full of emotion, a three year old child, the story of Little Red Riding Hood, the mean old man and even thento report the facts, we have to be objective and we must find all the evidence.But let me tell you what they say in these cases there are no witnesses, there is only the word of the adult and the word of the child. Not so. It may be that expert evidence, can be taken to children ... ..For example in the case of Joana,  sperm was found on underwear which would have been in the vaginal area....but we had no body. It is possible to do and it is psychological testing when evaluating the child, as has happened in other cases, to tell if the child is, or is not telling the truth.JP: But as a person who is as experienced as Gonçalo Amaral, how does he measure the true voice of a child?GA: I speak from my experience about a case that happened in the Algarve, a mother who reported the situation and there was even the intervention of the Committee on Protection of Minors, and when the child is heard, along with an expert, a psychologist, she is telling the story, drawing what had happened, what had happened ... It is a material witness. Those documents that the child is a child is ... So how to speak with age and that began to express themselves by drawing, as in many cases ...GA: Children usually do not lie but it takes some care, but I can tell you that many of the cases that happen within the family has everything to do with everything: the maltreatment, domestic violence and even the lack of security. The main source of danger to the child is in the home where they live.I like to leave here, if you give me a chance ... there is a very interesting project, which is taking place which is the "Workshop of the hazards, the Hazard House" in Lousã. A project of the City Council where Lousã alert for a number of dangers. And I think it is out there in terms of training, is one of the ways ...JP: and his book now out in October will also talk about it ...GA: Speeches, talk about it in the siage.Children in the family are more dependent, up to 11, 12, 13 years and the cases occur within the family, acquaintances, neighbors.gns and sources of danger, what types of risk, what behaviors and the end result: The disappearance, abduction, death ,children are very vulnerable to victimization .

Friday, September 9, 2011


The Madeleine Foundation will appeal against the Met Police's refusal to answer 6 out of the 11 FOI Act questions. I've highlighted the most important parts in red:


Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011080000691

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

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

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

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


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


The searches located information relevant to your request.


I have today decided to:

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

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

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


The following questions have been responded to in full:

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

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

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

The MPS response is: The senior officer with oversight of the review is Commander Simon Foy. Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Andy Redwood is the Senior Investigating Officer. DCI Redwood reports to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell.
At question 10 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?

The MPS response is: The review team does not have a deadline for the completion of its review.
At question 11 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

The MPS response is: The MPS has allocated a team to deal with this and the Home Office have agreed to reimburse this cost. This is reviewed on a quarterly basis.
The following questions have been refused on the grounds that they do not constitute a valid request under the Act:
At question 8 you asked: On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.

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

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

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what recorded information you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek assistance from any other available source.

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

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?

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

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

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

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

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

At question 1 you asked: What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
At question 2 you asked: When was that remit agreed?
At question 3 you asked: Who decided the remit?
At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?
The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act
Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

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

Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.
This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.


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

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

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

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

Evidence of Harm

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

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and / or civil process.

Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.
High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.
Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

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

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

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


If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 020 7230 2003 or via the email address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained—

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

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

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

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

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

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.


Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.


If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Sunday, September 4, 2011


With the arrest of Ross Hall I believe it is now becoming evident that the McCanns phones were hacked. There are now far too many coincidences with hackgate and the McCanns to be ignored. Hacking has been going on for years, not just with Murdoch but other British journalists have been hacking peoples phones to get  that all EXCLUSIVE 'scoop'., David Leigh for example now editor of the Guardian has admitted to hacking .The Daily Mirror and Piers Morgan are also in the spotlight and an article  written by Lori Campbell for the Sunday Mirror has drawn my attention for two reasons...the questions that were included in the article suggesting what the PJ might ask Kate McCann has been removed... and secondly question nine, stating the McCanns have admitted giving the children a pain killer ?

NOW, only in Kates book does she claim the children were sedated on two occasions, a ridiculous assumption but not so ridiculous if the McCans knew four years ago that their phones had been hacked and 'someone', Ross Hall for example had heard one or other of them telling a family member they had given the children a 'mild' pain killer ...then passing this information on to Lori Campbell for her article in the Sunday Mirror ONLY by hacking the McCanns phones would this information have been confirmed by the McCanns themselves, publicly they have denied giving the children any form of medication.

Police suspicion around CC



1 – Did you kill your daughter? – Kate has never been asked this question outright before in the whole inquiry.

2 – What did you do with her body? – Although cops are convinced Maddie is dead,they have no body and is still missing.

3 – Why did you hire a car? – The McCanns managed without a car until 25 days after Maddie vanished.

4 – Why did you hire the car the day before going to see the pope? – Cops say it makes no sense to rent a vechicle when kate and gerry were about to fly to rome.

5 – Did the hire car contain any of Madeleines belongings? – Police say Maddies blood was found inside the car and want to rule out any legitimate explanation.

6 – Why was Maddies blood found in the villa and in the car? – Kate was asked did she have a normal accident.

7 – Did you move Madeleines body in the hire car? – Police are convinced that forensics evidence places maddie inside the car hire after she vanished.

8 – Why did sniffer dogs detect traces of a corspe on your jeans and t – shirt,and Maddies cuddle cat toy? Kate, a doctor insists she was present at the deaths of six patients shortly before flying to portugal.


9 – Did you sedate Madeleine? – The McCanns admit giving the children an infant painkiller. But they insist they never gave sedatives and deny giving Maddie an accidential overdose.

10 – Did you have any syringes in the apartment? – Kate insists she did not but thinks they may be referring to a “Dropper”used to give the children medicine.

11 – How much did you drink that night? – The McCanns have denied reports that their group downed 14 bottles of wine at dinner.

12 – Who checked on the children and at what times exactly? – The McCanns have given a timeline but police are trying to iron out alleged possible inconsistencies.

13 – Did you ever leave Madeleine unattended for much longer than you claim? – Witnesses are said to say she was heard crying for her parents for long periods on evenings that week.

14 – Does your husband know about it? – The police want to know if Kate will implicate Gerry in their theory.Their bond is tight but police see her as the weaker of the two.

15 – Does anyone else,including your friends know about it? – The police theory may require a conspiracy involving some of the couples highly reputable friends.Police are focusing on alleged discrepancies in their statements.

16 – Why did you shout, 'Someone has taken my little girl'! after returning from her room on the night of her disappearance? – Cops want to know why she automatically assumed her girl had been snatched and not just walked off.

17 – Did you ever leave Madeleine all evening to go into town? – A barman claimed he saw the McCanns in Lagos, five miles away.They insist they were in Paraia da Luz that night.

18 – Did you call police as soon as you found Madeleine was missing? – There have been suggestions that a neighbour offered to call police but Kate insisted she had already rung – than waited another 40 minutes before actually making the first call.This is disputed.

19 – Why did you call a priest on the night Maddie vanished? – Police beleive devout christian Kate may have been feeling guilty.

20 – Why did you wash cuddle cat after Maddie went missing? – The cuddly toy was Maddies favourite and had her distinctive smell.

Kate carries it wherever she goes.

21 – Did you hide anything in the church? – Kate and Gerry were given keys to the church in Praia da Luz so they could pray there alone.

22 – Why do you want to go home now? – After four months in Portugal,the McCanns planned to leave as DNA test results were due.


Here is Kate McCanns witness statement from May 4th, as you can see there is no mention of Madeleines toy on a high shelf /ledge. I believe Ross Hall should be questioned by the MET as to where he got this information from because it is not as Lori Campbell suggests in any police statement. Lori Campbell the partner of Ross Hall who tried to set Robert Murat up as the person who abducted Madeleine...

Kate McCann witness statement May 4th...

The following articles regarding the McCann case were written by either Ross Hall or Lori Campbell. (see above Link)

Lori Campbell is the journalist who brought suspicion onto Robert Murat as the potential abductor of Madeleine McCann.

Lori Campbell and Ross Hall *appear*  to have originated the reports that Cuddlecat had been found on a high shelf, thus supporting McCann's abduction claims. Ross Hall claimed that the Cuddlecat / high shelf story was uncovered by a News of the World investigation. Lori Campbell claimed police source.

Ross Hall and Lori Campbell are allegedly now married after traveling the world for a year. Ross Hall is allegedly the originator of the "Dear Neville" email - at the center of the News of the World hacking scandal.  Ross Hall was allegedly
arrested in connection with the hacking probe early Sept 2011.

Implication : That the McCanns phones were hacked and intercepted when the REAL story of what happened to Madeleine was being relayed to a family member and the fact the toy was on a ledge and Madeleine had an accident resulting in her death.

Saturday, September 3, 2011


Aqui fala-se de tudo sem a fita na boca .Fala-se de galinhas,patos,galos,pintos e ovos lá do galinheiro Com oculos ,bigodes ,celulite e sem febre das aves ou com hemeroidas,não faz mal apenas dizemos o que vai á telha ,sejam patos bravos com ou sem capachinho ,caçadores ,do alvor,de olhão e do terreiro do paço tanto faz com milho ou sem piolhos somos os galinácios do ALGARVE terra de constrastes e de gente sã.

Domingo, 16 de Novembro de 2008

Swingers tonw Luz Algarv

robert murat a despejar os sacos da borga na ultima noite
Nós as bifas adoramos postes tugas por isso vivemos em terra de pesacadores onde fazemos bacanais junto ao belavista domus

he Sargeants Inn \\ Homepage : Post
Is Ocean Club Owner David Symington related to Robert Murat?
Author Blackwatch (of 25/10/2008 @ 15:00:19, in Ocean Club - Symingtons, viewed 999 times)
Not only has it been suggested that Robert Murat and David Symington - the owner of the Ocean Club Complex - could be distant blood relations, it also appears that the Symington family are one of the most powerful families in Portugal and have very strong links to the most powerful figures in the British Establishment. Why did the British Government get so closely involved? It seems so obvious now ...
Remember the story about Ocean Club business man, Angus Symington and Robert Murat and how his likeness cast doubt on the testimony of the Tapas witnesses? Well herein lies a tale ...
Although the Ocean Club is managed by Mark Warner Resorts, the property is actually owned by members of Portugal's trading aristocracy: David Symington, John Garveigh and Robin Crosland (M.D). 1The privately educated Symingtons are the world's largest and most powerful Port and wine producers, accounting for roughly 40% of all premium Port sold throughout the world. Often described as Portuguese-Scots by trade magazines, the family has estates both in Portugal and South America. The family itself is based Portugals' second largest city, Oporto and has been for generations. In fact, the family now head-up the Porto Embassy. The Garveighs, on the otherhand, came to Portugal in the 1960s and have considerable experience of the property market.Robert Murat's family were also in the Oporto Wine Business. Robert is the elder son of John Henry Queriol Murat, a leading property developer in Portugal and widely accepted to have been instrumental in turning Praia da Luz into a high-class resort - as too are the Symingtons and the Garveighs - who picked up the property mantel in the 1980s.
In an article by The Telegraph, it was described how Robert's father capitalised on the collapsing property market prior to Portugal's Carnation Revolution in the mid-1970s over fears that there would be a communist take-over. It is suggested that he helped build Praia de Luz in partnership with another Portuguese businessman, João Pedro Jacinto, until a professional dispute in the 1980s destroyed his father's prospects prematurely. 2 He died from throat cancer in the 1980s when Robert was 12 - devastating the family's burgeoning property empire.
However, in an unusual twist, it has been alleged that the Murats and the Symingtons may be related through the Atkinson family:"The fourth child of John and Ellen Atkinson was Margaret (1826-1898). She married Henry Murat, one of the oldest English Port shipping families in Oporto." - The Symington Family Ancestry in Oporto - view Symington Family Tree here
The Symington Family are descended from Andrew James Symington and Beatrice Atkinson who married in Oporto in 1891 - a fact clearly documented on the family's website. Andrew James arrived as a young man from Scotland in 1882 whilst Beatrice was descended from John Atkinson - the famous wine merchant - who had lived in Oporto since 1814. Atkinson himself was descended from first British Consul in Lisbon and Oporto - Thomas Maynard - who was appointed to his position in 1656 by Oliver Cromwell. From what I can gather online, it's my understanding that Robert Murat is a descendent of Beatrice Atkinson's first Aunt, Maragret Atkinson who married the Oporto Wine Magnate, Henry Murat in the mid-to-late1800s (both Henry and Queriol Murat were grandson and great-grandson of Peter Murat, one of the earliest Port Shipping Merchants in Oporto - click here to view Murat-Symington Tree).
If this is true, then it would of course mean that Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat (Robert Murat) would also be a descendent of Thomas Maynard - the first English Consul of Lisbon and Oporto (one has only to consider the names of Robert and his father John - John Henry Queriol Murat - to appreciate the familial link).
In August 2005, the Symingtons and the Teague family featured in a tussle with the British Government over an Oporto Estate worth over £14 million. John Buck, the British Ambassador in Lisbon at the time, hinted that the Foreign Office believed it had a strong claim to the estate. He referred to it as 'a public asset'.
In April that year the British Consulate in Oporto was transferred from the British Government to the Symington Estates HQ in Travessa Barão de Forrester, ending 300 years of close relations between the two countries. The Ocean Club owners's nephew, John Symington (or Joaohonesto from Porto) is now the British Honorary Consul and Zilda Gomes is Pro-Consul. 3
British Ambassador to Portugal John Buck said: "The closure of the Consulate in Oporto, and of many of the Government's other Consulates in the developed world, is a response to the increasing challenges faced elsewhere, for example in promoting sustainable development or fighting terrorism. It is a positive sign of the way in which most British communities have become fully integrated into a developing Europe."
In January of this year, the Daily Mail ran a story in which it was alleged that Robert Murat and another Ocean Club property developer, Angus Symington bore an 'astonishing likeness' to each other. 4 However, neither the Daily Mail nor either of the parties involved mentioned the Symington link. The story was used to raise doubt about the reliability of the eight Tapas witnesses placing Robert at the Ocean Club on the evening of May 3rd. For the most part the British Press failed to acknowledge that Angus Symington was the son of Ocean Club owner David.
Angus Symington (a reference to the family's Scottish heritage) is a co-partner in Ocean Country Real Estate along with Christopher Garveigh - son of Ocean Club owner John Garveigh. The company has its Head Office in Praia da Luz.
Robert Murat and Angus Symington - not just similar but related
Paulo Reis also described how his intention immediately prior to starting the Madeleine Gazeta Digital blog in May 2007 was to use the blog to exploit the new trading opportunities developing between Portugal, China and Macau. He was to focus on the Wine Industry (he started the blog in late April 2007).After first boarding at Ampleforth College near York and Ripon (often described as the 'Catholic Eton'), Rupert Symington (born 1964 and nephew of Ocean Club owner David Symington) attended the Oxford University's Corpus Christi College at the same time as the UK's Foreign Secretary David Miliband (born 1965).
At Ampleforth College, Symington sat alongside such luminaries as King Letsie III of Lesotho and the Scottish historian, William Dalrymple - second cousin to Virgiania Woolf, expert in early Muslim and Eastern Christianity and regular contributor to New Statesman and The Guardian (Lesotho was actually one of the first places mentioned by Light in the Darkness author, Matthew James. Ramabanta in Lesotho's Basutoland is home to a Catholic Mission and to a Shrine dedicated to Portugal's Fatima Miracle)After graduating Rupert honed his skills at the prestigious INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France followed by a five-year stint in the city of London as financial analyst with Nomura. Nomura has since taken over the European and Asian operations of bankrupt Lehman Brothers. (Rupert has also worked in Africa).
Rupert's brother Charles Symington (39) has extensive business links with the Spanish-South American Wine Empire, Miguel Torres. The company has offices and wineries in Barcelona, Spain, Sweden, Chile and California. Followers of the Madeleine McCann case may remember that it was Clara Torres, the Spanish tourist from Albacete who took the photograph of 'Madeleine' in Morocco in September last year. However, it has not been established whether or not Clara Torres is a member of the Barcelona dynasty.
Rupert Symington
If any of this is true, then the Madeleine drama must have been a worry to all their tourism and property prospects. As for Robert, it must have difficult knowing that his Symington relations across the road at the Ocean Club had become so fantastically and enviably wealthy and successful, whilst his own prospects in life had now all but collapsed.
Any further information welcome.
As it says on the Ocean Club website
"There are still strong connections between The Ocean Club and this famous family."
1 George Robin Crosland is co-owner and Managing Director of the Ocean Club. He has been in the Algarve for more than 26 years, orginally working as an architect in Nigeria (having trained at Hull School of Architecture). The name 'Crosland' is popular in Plymouth and Devon - where Robert Murat's maternal family - the Eveleighs - are based. In fact it was another Plymouth architect, Des Taylor who built Murat's villa, Casa Liliana in 1993. For the sake of trivia, Plymouth is also home to the Plymouth Brethren - a fiercely conservative, Evangelical Christian movement, whose history can be traced to Dublin, Ireland, in the late 1820s. The former Socialist Labour Foreign Secretary and Fabian Society stalwhart, Anthony Crosland was raised by the Brethren, as was Aleister Crowley. Crosland - a former MP for Great Grimsby (a town situated on the UK's Hull and Humber Estuary) - was generally regarded as Labour's most influential revisionist thinker and a 'prophet' of New Labour movement (Gordon Brown, is a self-proclaimed disciple of Crosland). The Sunday Times and Telegraph journalist Susan Crosland - Tony Crosland's widow - is a good friend of John Prescott, the veteran MP for Hull East. On his Friendsreunited entry, George Robin Crosland says he has sold his share in the business and wants to travel. he says he is thinking of moving to the Caribbean, Burmuda or the Caymons.
2 Although it is possible to speculate that John Murat's business associates may have at one time included the Symingtons, the Croslands or the Garveighs, there's currently no evidence to confirm it either way.3 Given that the Symington family are both owners of the Ocean Club and preside over the British Consulate in Oporto it seems reasonable to assume that the Symington family may have been the people responsible for getting John Buck and the British Government so closely involved in the case (the Portuguese Press alleged that Buck was the first to impress upon the Police that this had been abuction and that they should pursue it over and above all other enquiries, but this has yet to be proved). So far both the British and Portuguese Press have failed to acknowledge the power and influence of the Symington family in Portugal. This in itself is worthy of closer scrutiny (on June 7 2005, John Buck hosted an event at the Oporto Cricket & Lawn Tennis Club. The event was sponsored by Symington Family Estates). In more recent months the Symington Family Estate sponsored and hosted a meeting by the British-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce on the issue of 'European Identity'. John Symington was joined by a number of senior figues that included the new British Ambassador to Portugal, Alex Ellis. Incidentally, I always thought Joaohonesto ('honest john') was our very own Paulo Reis. The following thread includes a very 'Reis-Style Rant' as well as no small amount of concern shown over the Porto wine-industry.
4 This is not the first 'astonishing likeness' we have had, of course, the first was the alleged likeness between Robert Murat's daughter, Sofia (4) and Madeleine McCann. Did May 2007 see a bizarre 'genesreunited' event?see also: Rupert and Charles SymingtonArticles by William Dalrymple (Rupert Symington's Ampleforth boarding school-mate)Political IslamOn Understanding Al-QaedaGeneral
****All of which leads me back to the Three Arguidos' unconditional support of Robert Murat.
# 1
I think you might be onto something here. Very impressed. The thing that really stands out is the story about Angus Symington. Why the hell didn't the press make a connection between Angus Symington and David Symington, the Ocean Club owner? Also, I think the best that can be said is that Murat was a distant relative. Even so, the fact he lives so close to the Ocean Club and is in property suggests these people may know they are related. Seriously. This is all quite a surprise. I still think the McCanns might know something though.
Author JezM (send 27/10/2008 @ 13:22:56)
# 2
Had an idea. Have another look at this bit"In August 2005, the Symingtons and the Teague family featured in a tussle with the British Government over an Oporto Estate worth over £14 million. John Buck, the British ambassador in Lisbon at the time, hinted that the Foreign Office believed it had a strong claim to the estate. He referred to it as 'a public asset'."If other wine families had been looking to claim this Porto estate, is it possible Robert and his mother Jenny had been looking into it also?IF they are related to the Symingtons and IF they know they are related, when did they first know they were?Could the claim on the estate have something to do with it?Are you SURE that RM's family goes back to the original Porto wine family?
Author JezM (send 27/10/2008 @ 15:51:10)
# 3
Not sure about all that Jez. Maybe I've confused things a little. Here's how it goes:Some dearly departed and very rich old biddy in Porto, Portugal, called Evelyn Teage bequeathed her estate to Britain and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1957 on condition that Britain would serve as Oporto's permanent consul (the estate was valued at over £14 million).Trouble is, in 2005, Britain and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pulled their consulate out of Oporto - thus reneging on the agreement with the old lady.The family of the old lady also claims that the British Foreign Office abused the conditions of the gift when it moved valuable silverware to the British embassy in Lisbon, as well as selling parts of the estate.Naturally, the family wanted to claim back the whole of the Estate off the British Foreign Office.From what I can gather, neither the Symingtons nor the Murats have any legal claim to the Estate, but that didn't prevent the Symington family taking sides with the old lady's family during its scrap with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.In spite of the spat with the Foreign Office, Johnny Symington was appointed by Britain as Honorary Consul in Oporto after the British Embassy had pulled out.This shouldn't come as any surprise as the Symingtons (both the Ocean Club's David Symington and Johnny Symington) are descendents of the first British Consul in Lisbon and Oporto - Thomas Maynard - who was appointed to his position in 1656 by Oliver Cromwell.The Symingtons are related to Maynard through Beatrice Atkinson who married Scotsman Andrew James Symington in 1891.It's my belief that Robert Murat is a descendent of Beatrice Atkinson's first Aunt, Maragret Atkinson who married the Oporto Wine Magnate, Henry Murat in the mid-1800s. This means he too would be related to Thomas Maynard - the first English Consul of Lisbon and Oporto.Johnny Symington (relative of Ocean Club owner David Symington) took over as Honorary Consul in 2005.So if people are looking for a reason why the British Government got so involved in the Madeleine case, it wasn't because of some connection to Gerry or Kate, but because of the Symington family. Bell Pottinger were recruited not for the McCanns but for the Symingtons. The crisis management team were in place to look after the interests of a very powerful and a well-connected British-Portguese family. The British Government is protecting the Symingtons and the Croslands - not the McCanns. The McCanns just became lucky benefactors of whatever cover-up was in place - that's my view.As for Murat, I really don't know. Perhaps he got interested in genealogy or something. I know I did after the death of my own father a few years ago. Perhaps some personal crisis made him check out his family history. And then we have that whole thing kicking off with the Estate in 2005 and the appointment of his distant cousin Johnny Symington as Honorary Consul. All this coinciding with the collapse of his marriage to Dawn and his estrangement from his daughter. Must have been trying times.I am more interested in finding out who was his father's original business partner - the one John Murat fell out with. Maybe he's the source of some resentment or other. Maybe there are rivals on all sides. People with things against Murat.Here's what we have so far:
The Ocean Club is co-owned by David Symington.
David Symington is a member of the rich and powerful Symington Dynasty (at least it says this on the Ocean Club website)
Johnny Symington is Britain's Honorary Consul in Oporto (Portugal's Second City) and is a friend an associate of John Buck - the fomer British Ambassador who seized control of the McCann investigation.
Rupert Symington attended Oxford University at the same time as David Miliband and is very influential in his own right.
Robert Murat appears to be related to the Symingtons - a distant cousin and perhaps (although not likely) even heir to certain estates in Oporto.
So which is more likely: were the British Government falling over backwards to help (and possibly clear) an anonymous and fairly unremarkable couple from Leicester or falling over backwards to help their very rich and influential friends, the Symingtons?
Author BW (send 27/10/2008 @ 17:19:45)
# 4
Palmera16 writes at the 3arguidos: "What is odd about two people who are related having similar looks?"Nothing, but the whole world was never told that the two people were related in the first place. That's what is odd. There has never been any mention in the media of a family relationship between Robert Murat and David Symington - the owner of the Ocean Club (a relationship that only goes back 4 generations).
The Daily Mail aricle that reported on the likeness between Angus Symington and Robert Murat didn't even care to mention that Angus Symington was related to David Symington - the owner of the Ocean Club.In fact, as far as the British media are concerned - the owners of the Ocean Club are Mark Warner Resorts. But they are not: they only co-manage the property on behalf of Symington and Crosland.
Only two publications in the world have mentioned who owns the Ocean Club - the Portugal Resident and yours truly.Why have the Brtish Media never mentioned who really owns the Ocean Club? Likewise, why have they never mentioned that the owners of the Ocean Club also represent the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Oporto? Their link to the British Government?
# 5
I'm wondering about the other look-alike, David Payne; could he be related to Murat and Symington?
Author NeverPebbles (send 27/10/2008 @ 20:01:39)
# 6
There's no evidence to suggest he is, no. My feeling is that something happened and several parties were very keen to have the crisis managed to avoid an embarrassing scandal. Here we have the Symingtons - co-owners of the Ocean Club and Honourary Consuls in Oporto and associates of Buck (there's also this issue of millions of pounds being owned by the British Foreign Office being owned to to friends of the Symington family. Favors called in?)I think people are making this a lot more complex that it really is.To be perfectly honest, I never thought Payne looked anything like Murat. I always thought that was a very very desperate story.My feeling is that they realised nobody was buying that first lookalike story (least of all the police) and so the legal team rolled out Angus instead. It was a risk, but as long as people didn't know that Angus was related to the owner of the Ocean Club or that he was related to Murat, they would be safe.So they kept quiet about all that and just hoped for the best.Whether its a happy accident or not, Angus to all intents and pruposes seems to have got Murat off the hook.
Author BW (send 27/10/2008 @ 20:25:22)
# 7
BTW: This sounds like I'm excusing the McCanns. I'm not. I just think that all this opens things up a little. The plot has taken on some new characters.Some people are likely to say that being distant cousins is unimportant - but these people are Portugal's aristocracy. Bloodlines are very important to these people. They are a dynasty in every sense of the word. Take the Rothschilds, who similarly kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages between closely related family members. The Rothschilds and the Frères is a similar proposition, or the Rothchilds and the Meyers. The only difference is one of scale.In fact, it seems fairly inconceivable given Murat's proximity to the Ocean Club and his interest in property that the subject of ancestry hadn't been raised. Murat is a property developer and Angus Symington is a property developer - and both of them lived within yards of one another. But of course, there's no certainly no evidence in the public domain to suggest that they did know.At the end of the day, these are not your typical British ex-Pats (as much as they would like to present themselves to the media in this way). Robert's father was not your typical ex-pat either: the Symingtons, the Croslands and the Murats built Praia da Luz up from scratch. Before they came it was just a beach. Murat's father and the Symingtons turned it into the resort we know today. They would be very much aware of each other. There seems little doubt about it.Even today’s Independent talks about Nat Rothschild and some 'distant cousin' being involved in some clandestine business dealings. Forums like the Three Arguidos won't like this news because they have invested everything in the McCanns being guilty and the Murats being completely innocent, without once contemplating a 'broader' arrangement or a degree of shared interests. Or maybe even resentments from elsewhere, other parties we might not even know about. Powerful people attract powerful enemies. My view is that the news answers rather a lot of questions: especially those that concern events immediately after the alleged abduction. And as regards 'creche records' - well who would really be in the best position to alter those?Robert Murat: 'dignified silence' or just keeping his head down and avoiding the glare of publicity? And what about those visits from Brian Kennedy? Pressure from the team or just team-talk?
Author BW (send 27/10/2008 @ 21:30:15)
# 8
Getting back to this wrangle over the £14 million Teage Estate.John Buck and the Symingtons feature very prominently in it. Also the whole thing was going to court in early 2006.This woman leaves her £14 million Estate to the British Foreign Office in Oporto on the condition that the Embassy will remain in Oporto.Although the Symingtons side with the Teague family, the British Consulate pulls out and leaves the Symingtons in as 'Honorary Consuls'.Was this move manufactured by the foreign office to fight off the claims of the Teage family?Where would the Foreign Office stand from a legal point of view?Does having an 'Honorary Consul' in Oporto mean that they have satisfied the conditions of the Teage agreement?If it does, this means that the Symington family has helped out the British Foreign Office and saved them forking out millions to Teage's great nephew and heir, Henry Shotton.In which case the British Foreign Office owes no small amount of favour to the Symington family.So when the owner of the Ocean Club (David Symington) has a major crisis on his hands, he calls on the direct intervention of the British Foreign Office and Symington friend, John Buck to manage the crisis.There's another link about the case below
Author JezM (send 28/10/2008 @ 10:16:53)
# 9
Hello BW. I have enjoyed reading your blog very much. Many in Portugal were not happy with choice of Symington. Many wanted a Portuges man or woman to deal with public or none at all. I have looked on the internet and found this also. Alex Ellis is the new man at the British Embassy in Lisbon. The British-Portuguese chmaber of commerce had an event this year in summer. It was sponsored by the Symington Family. It was about European identity. Alex Ellis was there. Here is also a report about Buck and Symingtons
Author elisa (send 28/10/2008 @ 10:56:22)
# 10
You mention the Symingtons having estates in South america. There are quite a few interviews with the Symingtons online that took place with the family in places like Brazil. I remembered that there was a story going round last year about a mobile call being traced to Argentina and south america. Could it be someone who knows the symingtons? Mobile story here
Author Sprite (send 29/10/2008 @ 16:48:27)
# 11Yes, somebody with a grudge against the family. A rival, a vengeful competitor? Powerful people make powerful enemies. Who knows.
Symington 'Dynasty' assorted links:Ocean Club talks about their 'famous' family Symington family history: feature in £14 million tussle with UK Government: Symington takes over as Honourary Consul/John Buck Story: host and sponsor European Identity event with British Ambassador Alex Ellis and British-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce: Dominic Symington talking in Brazil, South America (where they have further estates) ** I just thought it was worth reiterating that the Symington post is not an attempt to shift the burden from the McCanns to the Murats, nor is it an attempt to implicate the Symington family in Madeleine's disappearence. The intention is only to broaden the field of vision and extend the political and local context. As the intro to the site makes quite clear, I am not attempting to solve the mystery of who abducted Madeleine McCann. I am only interested in understanding the chain of events that gave rise to the media circus and transformed what was essentially a tragic local 'incident' into a major international 'event'.
That the incident took place at a property owned and managed by a family with well established links to the British Foreign Office and with a relatively deep rooted powerbase in the Portugal area may have had an impact on Downing Street's decision to send Mitchell and Dodd out in the first place, and it may account for the unprecedented level of support offered to the McCanns. On the otherhand, it may also account for the enormous wave of support offered by forums and blogs to Robert Murat. I am not offering a theory, just looking at the information available. At the end of the day there were at least 3 major parties all looking out for their own interests and conducting their own crisis management campaigns: the McCanns, the Murats and the owners of the Ocean Club. And it is how they went about their respective campaigns that may ultimately be responsible for the crap spewed up by the media and for some of the problems encountered during the investigation.
Author BW (send 30/10/2008 @ 16:43:37)
# 26
Acc to this article John Major used to holiday over there with a Ian and Cynthia Symington.
Author Anonimo (send 31/10/2008 @ 17:20:05)
# 27
Bingo! Great link. This provides a large piece of the puzzle:"While Tory prime ministers tended to holiday with friends abroad - Margaret Thatcher with Lady Glover, a widowed friend in Switzerland; John Major with Ian and Cynthia Symington in the Douro valley in Portugal", that's probably Ian Douglas Symington, father of Charles Symington (the Symington who was interviewed in Brazil) and uncle of Rupert Symington (who attended Ampleforth, the 'Catholic Eton').
What's more, John Major's political aide at the time was Howell James - the man who personally had Clarence Mitchell seconded to the Foreign and Commwealth Office to represent the McCanns -in June last year.However, it is David Symington who owns the Ocean Club. Blair later appointed Howell James as the Government's Communications Director.And who was the PR and Spin mastermind behind the Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher's rise to power? The first person to employ Howell James? It was Tim Bell - the founder of Bell Pottinger who took over as Crisis Management on behalf of the Ocean Club.Tim Bell (now Lord Bell and the founder of Bell Pottinger) was another who swapped allegiances when New Labour came along. In fact it was Lord Bell who successfully lobbied on behalf of the Saudi Government to have the BAE Arms deal charges dropped and rescued Blair from another criminal investigation.And get this: Lord Bell also worked for Alexander Lukashenko - the authoritarian President of Belarus (a Belarus Orphanage is where the McCanns sent all those cuddly toys they received in Rothley). Bell was also on hand to help Blair and his investors sell 'democracy to the Iraqis'.In addition to handling the McCann Crisis on behalf of the Ocean Club, Bell Pottinger handled all the media attention behind poisoned Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko.
In fact, Lord Bell, is a friend of Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky.But the real biggy is this: Bell Pottinger's client, Michael Cherney was recently involved in a $4 billion business dispute with Oleg Deripaska.As usual we've been making the mistake of lumping the Conservatives on one side and New Labour on the other, when it's a lot more complex than that.This is a timely reminder that Blair and New Labour only got in ’97 because they were the legitimate heir-apparent to Margaret Thatcher. Which party they belonged to was irrelevant. New Labour were more conservative than the conservatives.Who is being backed this time? Brown or Cameron? It doesn't matter which camp you are in as long as its centrist.Is this why we have Esther McVey

0 comentários: