I just want to bump this thread a little by elaborating on a couple of items
I used to know a young man who was interested in motorcycles. He had a nice motorcycle himself and was full of everything that youth is famous for. He
was good looking, had pretty girlfriends and lots of fun.
Talking to me one day about motorcycles, he mentioned that he was fascinated by biker gangs, the outlaw image and the fun and adventures they had.
I didn't say he was an intellectual giant.
I was alarmed when I heard about this unsuspected interest of his. I cautioned him in a very serious way. Here is what I said.
Don't associate with criminals.
Even if you have no intention of committing a crime yourself, you could easily become an accessory to a crime that you didn't even know had occurred.
You could be asked to hold a package for a friend, or to deliver something for someone, or to say something to someone, or to do a small innocuous
seeming favor that would put you into a chain of criminal events. Once in, you could never get out . . . without a great deal of difficulty.
I'm not sure if these sorts of cautions are delivered at Eton. Probably not. Who at Eton would be likely to associate with criminals? I mean
The Foreign Office, on the other hand, has communications, at the very least, with a very large number of people, great and small, whose activities
beg for and most often receive, careful scrutiny.
There is very little chance of the Foreign Office being duped into the role of "accessory after the fact" of a crime.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but
returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.
"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.
Suppose the above quoted statement were not in fact true? Suppose it were a lie from start to finish. What would be the effect of a lie like
? What purpose would it serve to tell such a lie, or have it told by an authoritative source like the Foreign Office
Any criminal who could enlist an authoritative institution like the FO to endorse his own mendacious version of events, at the outset of a criminal
investigation, would create an avenue of support down which it would be possible for a parade of the great and good and rich, to rally to his aid,
confident that such support was founded on an accurate assessment of the facts of the case by the Foreign Office.
I think the effect of such a lie would also be comprehensively damaging to any criminal investigation of a child's disappearance. A criminal, who
could succeed in having such a lie told, would be well advanced in throwing the authorities off his trail.
Well, most people don't like being told they are wrong. I know I don't like it. But it happens from time to time. It's humiliating, but I console
myself with my overall batting average on "being right". I don't do too badly, but it really doesn't matter much, because nobody really cares much
about what I think or what I say.
It's different for the Foreign Office, though. It's different for anyone with a public profile and reputation, whose business depends very greatly on
whether or not they are perceived as being right all the time
or very nearly all the time.
If a criminal could succeed in getting the support of very prominent members of a society, in significant numbers, and also have the imprimature of
the British Foreign Office on his version of events, the efforts of police agencies to swim against this tide of approval, might be overpowered.
Overpowered by the instinct for self preservation
not just of one criminal, but of a significant number of powerful members of society and
important members of one of the most powerful and deadly institutions ever created on this planet, the British Foreign Office.
If a criminal were to ride the wave of such support and parley it into the support of hundreds of thousands of people who contributed millions of
based on a conviction of the criminal's innocence, a conviction endorsed by statements of the British Foreign Office, a veritable
Gordian knot of self interest would be constructed against the efforts of criminal investigators. It would be impossible for them to prevail.
Now, speaking of the case of Madeleine McCann, I quote an earlier post:
10:XX - 11:00PM: Information and a request for assistance in the matter of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Portugal to
a ministerial level in the UK where discussions took place and a decision was made to issue an alert to the press, with Foreign Office attribution,
for a child who had been reported missing less than an hour before.
This can't be far wrong. A lot must have happened in that time period.
Just speculating here, but, it is likely that one of the Tapas 9, phoned the UK from Portugal and spoke to a friend with a strong connection to the
the Labour Party.
A chain of communications, of indeterminate length, but probably of not more than two or three links, would have extended itself to the upper levels
of the Labour Party.
To what level exactly?
This is a tricky area. It's almost like a trick shot in snooker.
Exercising caution, I would say that communication, the cue ball, travelled until it knocked one or two balls along, to a point where an important
ball was struck.
The important ball would be one that had a potential, if stroked properly, of coming together with a ball in Government. Now these balls in Government
can go in any number of directions, so they have to be stroked carefully with knowledge of just which ball is likely to meet a ball or balls with
enough weight to influence what the Foreign Office does
. What level is that?
But enough of snooker.
I'm saying that it would be a time consuming and complex task for a citizen of the UK, on the ground in Portugal, to get Foreign Office approval for a
press release of any kind.
To do it in less than an hour, on subject matter of which the Foreign Office is in complete ignorance, is impossible.
Surely that is the case.
If it is not the case and it was actually done, how was it done? I'd like to know that.
If it was not done
, the appearance
is that Labour Party members, must have had knowledge of and discussed the disappearance of Madeleine
McCann hours, perhaps as many as twenty-four hours prior to the frantic declaration by Kate McCann on May 3, 07, that Madeleine was missing.
edit on 8-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)