NO JUSTICE ON THE JUSTICE FORUM - NOR WILL THERE EVER BE Part 6

 You are 'challenging' Martin Grime whilst acknowledging that he is professionally ( and perhaps legally ) prohibited from responding to your slurs

There is no point to your 'challenge' therefore, other than the posturing of a coward who feels free to malign without fear of repercussion

The tapas crew, on the other hand, are under no such professional/legal obligation and are free to speak openly to defend their good name whenever they choose ... and even take legal action if they so wish

Gilet:

There is absolutely no reason why the person who made the claims on this forum who I challenged cannot post evidence to back up her claims.

Your silly attempt to portray my questions about Grime as attacks are very transparent.

The Tapas group are no freer to post on forums than Grime is. They are potential witnesses in an ongoing police investigation and such posting from them could be very damaging to any such case or to any evidence they may be asked to give/confirm in any future trial.

That you fail totally to understand that is not a surprise to me.

If there are aspects of the case which this forum has decided cannot be questioned such as the role of Grime perhaps a list should be made and posted as a sticky with reasons as to that ban?

John: Martin has no need to defend himself gilet so why suggest such nonsense? He has been invited to post content here specifically related to victim recovery and csi dogs, nothing else. It matters little whether the Madeleine case is wrapped up or solved, he is still entitled to discuss issues unrelated to ongoing investigations. I am hoping to have a new photo shortly of the dogs in action...watch this space!

Joseph O'Driscoll ‏@Josephodriscoll
@MrBuskom @Syn0nymph There is a Pc Whittle & I'm awaiting a call to discuss Slutty's reference to him or her

Gilet:     Correct, something I have been saying ever since my first post on this forum.

   Those who claim to know that the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

   Just as anyone who proclaims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either.

   This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.

   A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.

   Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would be a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate.

Ichabodcrane:  
Goodness me  ...   I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !

The most obvious,  of course in the pure  Antirationalism of the first portion of your post  :

Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it",   whatever that IT might be,  are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong.  They don't know the truth of the matter either

What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions.  Those who,  like you,  use this antirationist method of propogada often claim  ;

"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"

That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth  ...  Yes,  we  can know some things for sure

There's a little bit of  'Escape via Relativism'  in that section of your post too   ...  the generalized,     "everybody has their own opinion"  implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence    (  which is not true of course  )

The next paragraph in your post,  whilst using a bit of  'conflation'   ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters  )  is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique,  but is,  I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity,  whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw

Then we come to :

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100%  genuine,  are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.

At first glance that paragraph is classic  'Straw man'  ...  propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened    (  the  'doctoring'  of the police files  )   but it is more than that in propaganda terms

You are also using the technique of of  'Spurious delegitimization of evidence'    ...  in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo

And to your  concluding paragraph :

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might  not be completely accurate

You've excelled yourself there !

You incorporate a bit of  the  'stroking ploy'   by refering to those who  refer to the police files when supporting a opinion  as  'experts'  on the case ...  but then pick up the  'delegitimize your opponent'  technique by implying their expertise might be flawed

Then it's back to the old staw man,   where you,  once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way,   and  propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma

You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet,  but,  if I might say,  you do tend to over-egg the pudding

Gilet: There are three significant problems with your post.

Firstly it does not in any way answer any of the actual points I made.

Secondly it demonstrates precisely why people should not pretend to expertise which they do not possess. You have attempted to use terminology with which you are not overly familiar and have shown that lack of familiarity by being unable to use them correctly.

Thirdly, the fact that it is nothing more than a pretentious attempt at abuse shines through in a way you hoped it would not.

Not even a nice try, I am afraid.

Now, can you actually answer any of the points I made in the post or is that your best effort?

coco wrote:didn't you think Itchy's post was like a fat greasy pie then ?   

John. Senior Editor

Gerry McCann and his involvement with Government Quango COMARE in 2007.
« on: Today at 08:19:14 AM »
At the time of Madeleine's disappearance and in addition to being a cardiologist, Gerry McCann was a medical advisor to COMARE, a government committee which monitors radiation in the environment.  He was listed as a member of the Medical Practices Sub Committee.

His involvement is recorded in the COMARE 12th Report, a pdf copy of which is attached.

COMARE > Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.

COMARE is an independent expert advisory committee with members chosen for their medical and scientific expertise and recruited from Universities, Research and Medical Institutes. Members have never been drawn from the Nuclear or Electrical Power Supply Industries.

The Committee offers independent advice to all Government Departments and Devolved Authorities, not just the Health Departments, and is responsible for assessing and advising them on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation. It is also asked to assess the adequacy of the available data and advise on the need for further research.

COMARE's terms of reference are "to assess and advise Government and the devolved authorities on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation and to assess the adequacy of the available data and the need for further research".

www.comare.org.uk/index.htm
* COMARE12thReport.pdf (549.8 kB - downloaded 5 times.)

To put the events into simple language, COMARE was set up by the Labour Government to look into claims about radiation emanating from nuclear power stations and electricity pylons.  It was also tasked with investigation medical scans and radiation. These issues were controversial so it was in the Governments interest to have reports which were sympathetic to their policies.

Gordon Brown was UK Prime Minister at the time of Madeleine's disappearance. In 2004 his younger brother Andrew joined French energy firm EDF Energy, as head of media relations, where as of 2011 he held the position of director of corporate communications. EDF were lobbying to build nuclear power stations in Britain (Hinkley Point) and Gordon Brown wanted to restart the nuclear power plant building programme in Britain. Brown's brother Andrew was associated with Gerry McCann through COMARE

Bell Pottinger represented both the McCanns and the Portuguese holiday village they were staying in. Bell Pottinger also provide PR for the nuclear power industry, have close connections with New Labour (Tony Blair gave Tim bell his peerage), have helped sell New labours unique vision of democracy in Iraq and and have been heavily involved with several of New labours disastrous IT schemes

Make any sense now?
Vested interests?

There are several issues which Gerry McCann's involvement with COMARE raises.

This topic is based on researched information already in the public domain.

Thread under construction and will be opened for discussion in due course.

coco wrote:didn't you think Itchy's post was like a fat greasy pie then ?   

coco wrote:

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

23 October 2012

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090002985

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

The Met is being funded £M's for a Maddie #McCann case     review!
Mentioned in UK Parliament, by the Prime Minister himself     David
Cameron! Thames Valley Police did conduct Operation Mason for     David
Kelly, but YOU, hold ALL the information on Maddie McCann and     hence,
you would hold the information on her parents and hence on     Dr Gerry
McCann.      

1. I want to know if Dr Gerry McCann or his wife, Kate McCann were in  
ANY WAY linked to Dr David Kelly, his family or his work ? I am  
particularly interested to find out if there is a work related  
link, before or after Kelly's death.
 
2. Was Gerry McCann consulted in any way over Dr David kelly? .

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

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within Specialist Crime and Operations (SCO) at Homicide and Serious Crime
Command (SCO1).

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request as
the MPS were not involved in the investigation into the death of Dr David
Kelly.

It is publicly acknowledged that Thames Valley Police set up an
investigation into the initial disappearance of Doctor Kelly.  The missing
person investigation was given the name Operation Mason which was retained
for the subsequent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Doctor
Kelly's death, see below link (which seems to be inaccurate as 'page missing' is the message when you try an d access it.)

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutu...

Rachel Granada wrote:Was it John who made the FOI request?  

coco wrote:sounds like one of Bennett's nutters ?