Madeleine McCann: why all the government attention?

maybe that little question is a far greater mystery in the case of madeleine mccann, no matter what you points of view are, it is hard to understand that part. where it often results in thinking out of the box, often so far it never can find the box itself again, there could be just a very simple, even a bit awkward reason for how that once started.

and o, boy it started early, even before the pj could arrive in praia da luz, their was knowledge in the uk about a missing, cq abducted child. there it at least one freedom of information letter out that tells that the story was known in the uk government around midnight of may 3 to may 4, 2007.

and i think in all my not so humble opinions, that this was the result by the phone calls the extended family of the parents back at home in the uk had made. the family that told us the next morning already of broken in through jemmied shutters, doors fully open, and a child missing, taken.

what could happen when you tell your government such a story, well they have very useful operators even out of hours, that will of course are fond to check if it is not a hoax, that there actually are people of these names as british citizen known, and they use most often these nice databases for that.

and government databases can be a bit special, they can work with colours or just flags to names, they can react even to specific names. and let it be that in early may 2007 there where things going on, so what would you get if you put a surname of irish origins like mccann, kidnap and southern algarve in such databases, well in 2007 there had been still activities on the south european coast in spain, portugal and gibraltar of smuggling of weapons and drugs by some ira groups.
at that specific time the governmental organisations already worked ahead for a visit of tony blair to libya to talk shop, libya was at the time named as one of countries of origins of the smuggled goods. it was mostly an economic visit, they had mostly some oil business, the visit was planned and taken place at the end of may 2007.

so going by the short time the uk government had to react it could have happened they just tied the wrong knots, and chose to go for it. the it a possible kidnap of a maybe family member of well known ira names to stir up these diplomatic ties, who had been almost non existent because of the lockerbie disaster.

so if they had simply the idea it truly had a chance to be such a political kidnap of a british citizen it could explain why they came not just walking in, but almost took over portuguese soil and the portuguese investigation.
it could have been to gave pressure to keep the smuggling going between the different groups, it could be pressure on a goverment.
it also would explain the mass entry of the media so early, on what was still mostly a none story.
it could also explain many names of the people chosen to go to portugal, like the guys with northern ireland experience gamble and hill, i mean both been a kind of the head of ceops, but if you need boots you do not send usually the ceo's, but just the hands.
also the early days of clarence mitchell, head of then the media unit of the prime minister.
even the early entry of control risk, often called the first detective agency that assisted the mccann's in portugal, but they are more the kind of what you could call mercenaries that do tasks when a government cannot be seen mingling in business.

none of these people ever had experience with missing children's cases, and most not even with abducted or kidnapped children, but all had experience in handling government business in dire circumstances.

also the sending of to praia da luz of the full embassy team was not much in line with just a missing child, that at every moment could be found.

so yes, it could be as robert murat once said, all one big f.ck up.

and it could be why there are not given answers, because governments are not fond of telling the public they f.cked up in such a big way. so they usually just use the nice tools in the box of governments, set out some d-notices, declare it a national secret, so when it becomes known, they all are already mostly dead and forgotten.

and of course it would be a marvel for the mccanns themselves, you must be very stupid to not get a fair idea what they had been on about, the kind of questions, all the attention, it must have surprised them even more as it did us, the public.  
so the ones that come in the know can chose to make use of the knowledge.

the media has always had a good sniffer for large news, if they feel the vibe, they just go hunting. the guys and dolls who been send out would not complain much of course, even if it was known after landing at faro airport, or somewhere near a motorway, it was all just what it at first looked to be , just a wandered of child case. they would always have a few hours of sun and a some nice lunch on fresh sardines and a lot of beer while waiting till their return flight would took of.

and it would make the role of clarence mitchell even a fair bit different, he simply had to cover the government and was doing that to baby sit the mccann's. we can't hardly say he did them a good job in defending them of course, i mean telling the public they had no watches in the restaurant, and daddy mccann told in his statement a different story, the at 22.03 hours on my watch...., is not a thing you expect from a experienced media and pr guru of course.

it would even explain why there has been talk about guys from mi5 meeting people on the airport, and not mi6, mi5 covvers usually inland affairs, mi6 is for abroad.

governments are usually not so much into protecting specific citizens at all, but they are far better and well experienced in protecting them selves. and a giant miss calculation could explain why it still has to be one big cloud of old fashion london fog, that hangs over this case, and is kept up in the diversion of different political sided governments.

the reputation of the 'special services'of the uk are overly quite sound. and i could see why they wanted to protect that reputation. and will keep that doing, at least until the full what is it in the uk 70, 75 years for a secrecy act expired, and we are only almost 17 years in at the moment.

i do not have a clue if uk citizens can discuss about this at all, i am not one of them. so i can simply say it. can i prove it, no , of course not, but a complete f.ck up of the usual busy bodies in the government services is not something they would make known, not even if it was found out.

it was a once avid blogger known by the name of 'dr. martin roberts' that put the ira in a little box in my head.
it was when i found old articles online about tony blair visiting libya , that from the gardian is still online and gives a date of just before 29 may, 2007.

i know it has not much to feed a nice conspiracy, not multiple people to take part in a dark secret that needs a cover up.
but governments do not like to be confronted with silly mistakes, and they even are known for it. there is never a good time to get it into a nice sparkling scandal, and the start of may, would make it easily through the complete silly summer season in the media. and they had to take their holidays too of course.

and it also would mean the infamous rebekah brooks was right too, they all been in the same boat, and just have to keep rowing.

i see this government infliction is still under discussion. for me the story did fall in place when i just stopped looking for something that actually happened, i see a lot about let's call it the high ranked child abusing clans, to royals, royals with medical problems the mccanns did know of. but it are really not things that could not be handled by just jump one or two names to be done with it.

so when i started to look into something that not had happened , or just not and only was a thought in the right places that it did happen, it simply worked out well.
and covering up big mistakes, if you do not want to use murats his words for it, that would make others in other countries and the uk into a sound belly laugh, that usually hurts much more , than some dirt head that nicked the cookie jar, or some unknown medical people up front on the papers for maybe two weeks in total, including a process.

embarrassments they do stick forever. they will be used over and over again, from a silent whisper to a few lines in a movie script, a book of 2,3...
even when the colour of politics do change, the heads and hands under them do not. they will keep on with the secrets above their heads.

and would it have mattered in the sense of a child that still could be saved, i think not. her faith was already come to a definitive one. and as long as they can leep it up to be a missing child, that is was still an unknown abductor, and people who do never have existed are of course, nowhere to find.

and with a bit of help of some friends, or a someone who draws the shortest straw if a fall guy is served, it will be very easy to bring up a nice enough alibi in the end.

in politics there is no real fear of letting the truth out , about what did happen, they can deal with that, just some mumbling words of regretting to believe in some of their own citizens. even when some heads have to be offered on the political stakes, that happens often enough.

but if the why they used to walk in foreign territory, and 150 years earlier that would have meant simply a war, it is really heavy stuff to do, and certainly in this ways, because a bit of believing in the large data animal, and it still will be human mistakes, about something that has not even happened, i do not think they can live with that story in the papers.
and as the puppets we know as the heads in politics have been at play, that could be saved well. but these decisions are usually made by different heads, the politician just ends up with a bit of speech to tell the minions.

maybe this only can happen in the uk, that are supposedly the last people who can not say simply get lost, the truth needs to get out, but bravely put their signature under the paper that silence them. and that indeed keeps them silent.

i think the ira kidnap or the libyen terrorist kidnap would works very well when it never happened, but who knows there could be other big f.ck ups have been as assisting plot.

It can only ever amount to a matter of opinion but I can't see anything sinister about the high level of attention this case attracted.

One of more of the group of friends affectionately labeled the Tapas Group, had contacts in the media and the McCann's themselves had a close connection with another who had his own media business.

It's quite surprising to see how relatives and friends so readily close ranks in times of crisis, even down to pulling strings to get a mate speedy medical treatment.  Under such circumstances the crisis is swiftly whipped from the hands of the victim, if that's the right word, and taken over entirely by an unexpected force never to regain control.  Like your compromised into situations you would rather avoid but have little or no power to escape.

Then came the snowball effect, scores of good hearted people lurking in the background came forward with offers of help.  Somehow against their will they got swept-up in the whirlwind of good intention and bad intention.

There has been many a sign for the onlooker to determine what could be a bad influence and what could be a good influence but that really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things - it's just another getting back to basics without the collected debris.

Madeleine McCann disappeared without trace as reported on 3rd May 2007, whatever the true circumstances fact remains it's perfectly understandable the victims (that word again) would call on friends and family to lend a hand - whether they be guilty or not guilty!

Beyond doubt, the case certainly became a mammoth publicity event - another case of the situation being taken out of their hands?  I think so, aided and abetted by the father's apparent innate conceit - that in itself can be very misleading and very unhelpful.

o, i would have seen no problem if the government walked in as a result of the going of in the media of this case, but i certainly think there was something cooking the kettle dry, and the government was already in before the media arrived or got notice.
this was not a government seeking respecting the working law, or the individual rights of their own citizens.

and so early has simply no standard protocol behind it. that has a reason. or they would do it always and all the time.
and so early on, without any information to start from, singling out people to protect them over others, how is that when we look for justice for the victim, that still is only madeleine.

it is true when a government walks in, it becomes almost impossible to get them out again. they only see one way forward, but never a step back.

for me there can be only one victim, that is madeleine mccann, that is the person who if a crime is part of this story, the criminal deed was against. all others are bystanders, parents do not own their children, they do have a duty of care, no choice in that departement even. parental rights is just a stupid wording, it is just plain simple a duty of care. all they can say and decide on, must be on behalf and in the best interest of that child, not their own interests.

parents themselves cannot be victims, there is no crime against them.
there could be many people who truly love or like a child, including the parents who been part of a crime against their own child, but it does legally not matter, as long as the crime is not directed to them, they are not victims.

when you get too easy in giving such roles it would end up impossible to investigate properly.
statistics do not lie in this matter, but the worst predators of children are simply parents and carers.
that can be very hard to believe or understand, call yourself lucky then, because it usually means you had good parents, perfect parents are hardly out there, but good solid adults are out there. many are good parents. only there are also too many out there who are not. and you can simply not know that when a possible crime with a child as the victim has to be investigated.
by loosely calling parents before that is done victims you do loose out on being impartial.

cases around young children are already hard enough to work. the investigation is not a part of a social network, and it cannot even afford to be part of that. maybe that is also the largest difference between looking to a case from the public side, and working a case from the side of the law. at the public side is room for emotions, most would be simply your own, for the side of the law, everyone around a true victim is just a source to get information from to work that case.

people who are criminals, or possible criminals do not have clear flaws easy to select them from the rest of a population.
a lot of crimes are happening outside the normal state we know the same people in. out of their mind is often simply true.
and people can show true emotions after they had a hand in the result of a crime too. others can be great in acting emotions they not really have. there is no simple way to immediately know what happened and who had a role and which one in a crime.
investigations do not start with you did it. it is a long road with many crossings, they go up and down, back and fort until the information it there to tell what has happened and who had supposedly a role in it.
it means very often asking lots of questions, that can be very hard and invading all that was private territory before, not by choice, but to get that full story out.

and working a case means there is no room for the personal emotions or feelings of an officer, there is no room for who you are as a person. you are just a resource to work that investigation.

there is simply no tool in the box that can tell who is innocent directly. that often played card of everyone is innocent until proven guilty is not something that does work during an investigation, it works in a court. investigation is more no one is innocent until we have enough information to make that reality. no one has to prove its innocence at all, the law covers that well. but different during an investigation. you cannot say i know you are innocent and i have to arrest you for this crime at the same time.

investigations do not even have the task to declare you innocent or guilty, investigations do not make conclusions, that part is reserved for the courts of law. everything before that court is supposed, preliminary.
there are many rules to cover, so innocent people do not end up handled as if they are guilty, but they can get that as a feeling, that calling guilty is no task of an investigation. so all that comes out during an investigation must he heard and read with margins.

so even saying the police solved that case is not correct at all. all the police investigates is information, the facts and circumstances filtered from that leads to a story that is the most likely and most correct story, but the margins can only come of that in a court, so cases are solved in court, there all the investigation got together will be exterminated, there will be a defence too, and if a verdict is given that is the only moment you start to say case solved. still it cannot be said the case is finally solved, that will depend on possible views asked from higher courts.

and one thing is sure, this complete process can do well without politics or mingling governments or other parties, the law has not put a legal role in that process for them at all. certainly when that is done from other sentiments, what are a kind of emotions too, that are not used to find the truth. that boundary between the law and everything else has to be respected, otherwise it simply become a mess.