"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[fabgod]

What are your thoughts on the freedom of informatin request made by the Daily Star (i think), it has been reported in the express that Theresa May and the home office have stalled the rquest for 9 months, finally stating that
"there would be “specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal” if they were released.

It also claimed disclosure of three of the documents would “stifle discussion” between officials."

So what would be so detrimental to inter country relations? that Britain didnt think the Portuguese had done a very good job in investigating the disappearance of a 3 year old born to "two ordinary people from the north of England"
I cannot see how that would be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things as far as Nations are concerned

 

[Cappuccino]

In such a famous case it would internationally embarrass the Portuguese, and depending on whats in the documents may also damage their tourist industry. Not to mention that we don't know what else is going on behind the scenes - for all we know Britain and Portugal are already at loggerheads over butter quotas or something, (to take a random example), and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[fabgod]

Possibly, but then why order a review by Scotland Yard, because if information is being witheld by the Home office, then the review is bound to be dictated to, by the same limitations as the FOI request.

International Politics are playing a part in a missing persons case, which should not be the case

 

[Cappuccino]

The UK Home Office can and frequently do make Scotland Yard aware of information that they don't share with the Daily Star.

 

[fabgod]

The UK Home Office can and frequently do make Scotland Yard aware of information that they don't share with the Daily Star.

:floorlaugh

 

[brit1981]

Thats not how FOI requests work. The FOI are designed for members of the public to use, not the police. Therefore just because all the information is not being passed to people via FOI does not in anyway mean it is not being passed to the police. FOI can contain any written documentation, and FOIs do not give a summery of the information they just provide it i.e they would provide batches of emails, it is up the person making the request to sift through it. So if for instance someone has written the PJ could not organize a p@ss up in a brewery, were corrupt, were inept etc it would be politically embaressing especially as we are both in the EU.
Not answering a FOI made by the media is not at all the same as not passing the information on to the police, so it is in no way influencing a missing person's case.

 

[fabgod]

Thats not how FOI requests work. The FOI are designed for members of the public to use, not the police. Therefore just because all the information is not being passed to people via FOI does not in anyway mean it is not being passed to the police. FOI can contain any written documentation, and FOIs do not give a summery of the information they just provide it i.e they would provide batches of emails, it is up the person making the request to sift through it. So if for instance someone has written the PJ could not organize a p@ss up in a brewery, were corrupt, were inept etc it would be politically embaressing especially as we are both in the EU.
Not answering a FOI made by the media is not at all the same as not passing the information on to the police, so it is in no way influencing a missing person's case.

again point missed, i'm starting to wonder if this is harder than it seems!

If a FOI request has been declined by the Home Office in the basis that it could damage British/Portuguese relations, then it stands to reason that it is exactly the same scenario that the UK review would be stifled by the same restriction.
In other words, in case its still not getting through, the UK police would not be able to release certain information possibly of the type that the Daily Star has been actively seeking without causing
“specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal”
not my words, the words of the British Home Office.

By the way, we get it, you dont like or rate G.Amaral, you really dont need to make it any clearer, lets move on from that, it is just stifling any conversation and his tax affairs have nothing to do with you, me or the Madeleine McCann case.

 

[brit1981]

The Amaral thing is brought up because some people on the forum have used him on which to to base their opinions. When you get to the point where the only person you believe is a convicted criminal with a record for fabricating evidence, it is fairly obvious people are going to point out the flaw in the arguement. The "no-one can be trusted not to lie apart from a convicted liar" was always going to be a weak arguement. (I know you have not said this, but others have it as a theme to cling to).

As I said there is a huge difference between FOI and passing information to the police. Just because it would be considered harmful to release information to the general public does not mean that same information would be considered harmful to be handed over to the police. To refuse to hand something to the police would require something to have been classified as highly confidential, but refusing something under a FOI is much easier. I have answered and refused FOI requests before, and if I refuse to answer a FOI because it is considered private or something has no influence on whether I give that same information to the appropriate authorities.

BUT, this is a moot point as the FOI request that was refused were documents recording discussions between the british police and the home office regarding problems with the case in Portugal. Therefore I think we can assume the police know what is in these discussions as they were there. This make sme think that the refusal is because someone there was slagging the Portuguese off, and it would be mortifying to have it made public in a red top.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The Amaral thing is brought up because some people on the forum have used him on which to to base their opinions. When you get to the point where the only person you believe is a convicted criminal with a record for fabricating evidence, it is fairly obvious people are going to point out the flaw in the arguement. The "no-one can be trusted not to lie apart from a convicted liar" was always going to be a weak arguement. (I know you have not said this, but others have it as a theme to cling to).

As I said there is a huge difference between FOI and passing information to the police. Just because it would be considered harmful to release information to the general public does not mean that same information would be considered harmful to be handed over to the police. To refuse to hand something to the police would require something to have been classified as highly confidential, but refusing something under a FOI is much easier. I have answered and refused FOI requests before, and if I refuse to answer a FOI because it is considered private or something has no influence on whether I give that same information to the appropriate authorities.

BUT, this is a moot point as the FOI request that was refused were documents recording discussions between the british police and the home office regarding problems with the case in Portugal. Therefore I think we can assume the police know what is in these discussions as they were there. This make sme think that the refusal is because someone there was slagging the Portuguese off, and it would be mortifying to have it made public in a red top.

Again, please provide an msm link for this claim.

 

[fabgod]

The Amaral thing is brought up because some people on the forum have used him on which to to base their opinions. When you get to the point where the only person you believe is a convicted criminal with a record for fabricating evidence, it is fairly obvious people are going to point out the flaw in the arguement. The "no-one can be trusted not to lie apart from a convicted liar" was always going to be a weak arguement. (I know you have not said this, but others have it as a theme to cling to).

As I said there is a huge difference between FOI and passing information to the police. Just because it would be considered harmful to release information to the general public does not mean that same information would be considered harmful to be handed over to the police. To refuse to hand something to the police would require something to have been classified as highly confidential, but refusing something under a FOI is much easier. I have answered and refused FOI requests before, and if I refuse to answer a FOI because it is considered private or something has no influence on whether I give that same information to the appropriate authorities.

BUT, this is a moot point as the FOI request that was refused were documents recording discussions between the british police and the home office regarding problems with the case in Portugal. Therefore I think we can assume the police know what is in these discussions as they were there. This make sme think that the refusal is because someone there was slagging the Portuguese off, and it would be mortifying to have it made public in a red top.

Again, the point isnt what is in the FOI request, the point is that the review is bound to be constrained by the same Home Office thinking in that certain results or statements would be considered to be detrimental to the relationship between Britain and Portugal.

 

[brit1981]

fab, I disagree because the refusal was a refusal to provide disccusions with the met police to the daily star. That is bound to be because disparaging comments were made. The FOI request did nto ask to see any evidence to the case (not that these come under the FOI request system anyway).

Saphire,
I provided a link about amarals criminal conviction int he other thread. but go to the amnesty international 2012 report on Portugal.
By the way are you going to provide links for your claims about the FSS, US ambassador, two british governments, charity commission, the police etc.

 

[SapphireSteel]

fab, I disagree because the refusal was a refusal to provide disccusions with the met police to the daily star. That is bound to be because disparaging comments were made. The FOI request did nto ask to see any evidence to the case (not that these come under the FOI request system anyway).

Saphire,
I provided a link about amarals criminal conviction int he other thread. but go to the amnesty international 2012 report on Portugal.

Amnesty International IS NOT MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

By the way are you going to provide links for your claims about the FSS, US ambassador, two british governments, charity commission, the police etc.

I have but you will not accept it...further, your insistence on twisting my words means that I am no longer sure what exactly it is you are requesting.

Also, I have repeatedly stated that my posts are my opinion only, to which I am entitled, without having to "prove" anything. Your posts are assertions of fact therefore need to be backed up with msm links when requested.

 

[fabgod]

fab, I disagree because the refusal was a refusal to provide disccusions with the met police to the daily star. That is bound to be because disparaging comments were made. The FOI request did nto ask to see any evidence to the case (not that these come under the FOI request system anyway).

Saphire,
I provided a link about amarals criminal conviction int he other thread. but go to the amnesty international 2012 report on Portugal.
By the way are you going to provide links for your claims about the FSS, US ambassador, two british governments, charity commission, the police etc.

Never mind leaving no stone unturned, its like geting blood from a stone lol!

Shall we move on from here?

 

[brit1981]

saphire,
are you saying you think amnesty international is less reliable than a newspaper. I posted the link you asked for in the other thread when you asked for it.
And you have not provided any links proving your point. You said the wikileaks proved you point but it makes no mention of a cover-up involving the police, governments, ambassador, FSS etc.

Where is your evidence for instance that the FSs was a privately owned company with links to the mccanns no no legal rights to examine DNA.

As for the FOI request apparently it is being appealed so we might see it yet. I would love to see it, I bet someone was really rude about the Portuguese (remember the pettiness of the wikileaks cables). There was a book published that contained write ups from consulates and ambassadors who were leaving their posts and giving rather rude impressions of their colleagues from other countries. These all came from FOi requests, so I hope the daily star are aware that these were released so there is no excuse about embaressment about getting caught slagging the portuguese off.

 

[brit1981]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-evidence-separate-missing-child-case.html

this is a britihs news repor ton the conviction, but i think you can rely on amnesty not to fabricate material in their annual report

 

[SapphireSteel]

saphire,
are you saying you think amnesty international is less reliable than a newspaper. I posted the link you asked for in the other thread when you asked for it.
And you have not provided any links proving your point. You said the wikileaks proved you point but it makes no mention of a cover-up involving the police, governments, ambassador, FSS etc.

Where is your evidence for instance that the FSs was a privately owned company with links to the mccanns no no legal rights to examine DNA.

As for the FOI request apparently it is being appealed so we might see it yet. I would love to see it, I bet someone was really rude about the Portuguese (remember the pettiness of the wikileaks cables). There was a book published that contained write ups from consulates and ambassadors who were leaving their posts and giving rather rude impressions of their colleagues from other countries. These all came from FOi requests, so I hope the daily star are aware that these were released so there is no excuse about embaressment about getting caught slagging the portuguese off.

My name is Sapphire not Saphire.

Amnesty International is an INTEREST GROUP, not mainstream media. It is insane to suggest anything else.

Further I have never stated what you claim I have stated.

I have posted msm links many times but you refuse to accept them. This is not my problem.

 

[4Jacy]

In response to the title of this thread, of course not!! It is a moral responsibility to be a parent. Each and every child should be loved and cared for 100%. A good parent does not leave their small children alone - ever!

Whatever happened to Madeline MaCann, her parents are ultimately at fault for their lack of supervision. I really wish they would be arrested for at least child neglect if nothing else.

 

[SapphireSteel]

In response to the title of this thread, of course not!! It is a moral responsibility to be a parent. Each and every child should be loved and cared for 100%. A good parent does not leave their small children alone - ever!

Whatever happened to Madeline MaCann, her parents are ultimately at fault for their lack of supervision. I really wish they would be arrested for at least child neglect if nothing else.

Their behaviour is so unimaginable in Portugal that there are no clear "neglect" laws, sadly.

Nor in the UK.

They would have been arrested and charged here (Australia), and probably lost their twins as well.

These children were thoroughly neglected. They were the only children in the group who were thrust into the Club day care from morning to night, every single day of their trip.

They actually spent less 2 hours awake in the presence of their parents, per day.

This behaviour is culturally incomprehensible to the Portugese who are very hands on with their children.

 

[squish]

I don't think the McCann's should be blamed for the disappearance of their poor child. I wouldn't leave toddlers alone, let alone in a foreign country, but the McCann's wouldn't have left them if they knew Maddie was going to disappear forever. They obviously thought she would be fine. The parents were stupid and naive but didn't deserve for their daughter to go missing, or the abhorrent treatment by the media and the police.

The constant criticism has parallels with rape victims being told it was their own fault for being drunk or out alone at night. The rapist is at fault, not the victim. Similarly, the abductor is at fault, not Maddie's family, who are secondary victims to his (assuming it's a "he") actions. Besides, the constant torture of not knowing Maddie's fate is punishment enough for the parents' stupidity.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I don't think the McCann's should be blamed for the disappearance of their poor child. I wouldn't leave toddlers alone, let alone in a foreign country, but the McCann's wouldn't have left them if they knew Maddie was going to disappear forever. They obviously thought she would be fine. The parents were stupid and naive but didn't deserve for their daughter to go missing, or the abhorrent treatment by the media and the police.

The constant criticism has parallels with rape victims being told it was their own fault for being drunk or out alone at night. The rapist is at fault, not the victim. Similarly, the abductor is at fault, not Maddie's family, who are secondary victims to his (assuming it's a "he") actions. Besides, the constant torture of not knowing Maddie's fate is punishment enough for the parents' stupidity.

There has never been one shred of evidence of an abduction.

There is no "abductor".

The fact remains that Madeleine would not be missing if her parents had taken proper care of her.

They also knew that Madeleine and her baby brother had cried unattended for an hour and fifteen minutes the evening before, yet still did not choose to remain with their children. The fear and distress Madeleine must've experienced hearing her baby brother cry and being unable to help him, or indeed call for help, must have been incredibly traumatic, yet did not change her parents SELFISH behaviour one iota.