Textusa/No more doubts

A £3 million cover up.
Sounds about right, but just who is having their rear end defended?
And why?
Because all this is not to protect a couple of ten a penny doctors, no matter how well connected they are.

Their is only one reason why their would be a cover up......paedophillia.

Not drugs.

Not swinging.

Not corruption.


You can get round swinging and come out the other side if you keep your head down.


You can even come out the other side with a smack on the hand if you have taken drugs.


You can be sacked if you swindle people out off money...I.e. Expenses.

None off the above will get your hung, drawn and quartered.

But paedophillia......oh no......you life is well and truly ruined and over and people have long memories and HATE anyone that harms a child.....your back will ned to be protected 24/7.

But then again,sahat has Gerry McCann got that needs covering up.


Does he know something or does he know someone.


I will never forget John mccanns sentence...'people owe us favours, we are going to call in those favours'

kitti wrote:But then again,sahat has Gerry McCann got that needs covering up.


Does he know something or does he know someone.


I will never forget John mccanns sentence...'people owe us favours, we are going to call in those favours'

Hi Kitti, any chance of finding that quote? I've always found Uncle Jack the creepiest of the entire clan and that's in the face of stiff competition!

tigger wrote:

kitti wrote:But then again,sahat has Gerry McCann got that needs covering up.


Does he know something or does he know someone.


I will never forget John mccanns sentence...'people owe us favours, we are going to call in those favours'

Hi Kitti, any chance of finding that quote? I've always found Uncle Jack the creepiest of the entire clan and that's in the face of stiff competition!

I think John McCann said, "We called in a few favours." I have often wondered what kind of 'favours,' could have been done by the McCanns, which meant that certain people in powerful positions owed them a few.

It was Uncle Brian Kennedy who said:

"It's true we have friends we could call on that others may not have - and we used them, we called in favours."

http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1275754

I too have wondered what these favours might have been. Strange.

almostgothic wrote:It was Uncle Brian Kennedy who said:

"It's true we have friends we could call on that others may not have - and we used them, we called in favours."

http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1275754

Thank you. So, "we have friends we could call on that others may not have." Kerry Needham didn't have friends like that. She had to leave Greece when she couldn't afford to eat, but the McCanns had friends that others may not have! A boast that should be investigated.

" ... and we used them ..." he said.

That just about covers the familial mindset on both sides.

How very cynical.
How very sad.

With friends like that tribe, who needs enemas enemies?

There is an alternative explanation:

If the McCann 'affair' is being covered up, then it's the worst cover up in history. The McCanns would be a constant source of insecurity to those who initiated such a cover up, especially at the level this alleged cover up is supposed to function. Such people would not tolerate what has been going on for the past almost 5 years.
The British police do not publish the results of their investigations; they do not even report to the politicians who authorized the funding - they send the report of their findings to the CPS for a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute.
I'm sure all suspects would love to have a bound copy of police investigations presented to them, it would enable them to make their escape before the CPS had decided what to do, or at the very least, make the defence lawyers' job so much easier.
The police are investigating an abduction; of course they are, because that's what the people who reported the crime maintain it was. Don't expect the British police to make any kind of comment about whether they believe that it actually was an abduction or not. The British police do not do an information service which could reveal to anyone under suspicion just what they are up to.
Sometimes it can take 18 years or more to solve a crime where a person has disappeared.

An excellent Post which sums up my own feelings on the matter - some of which I've mentioned in various previous discussions: But you've packaged all those bits and pieces into a cogent summative overview which I heartily endorse.

It was John McCann that said it too.I remember him saying that whilst standing in PDL.......near a beach I think...

kitti wrote:It was John McCann that said it too.I remember him saying that whilst standing in PDL.......near a beach I think...

You're right about that except that I seem to recall that he was standing beside a river in Scotland at the time. Typical bravado one might expect from a person with his cultural background i.e. trying to appear more important than he is.

Annabel wrote:http://textusa.blogspot.com/

That was a poor blog entry by textusa who was unable to read between the lines. We all cleared up what an 'investigative review' means here ---> https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t18509-remit-for-operation-grange-now-online

and it doesn't mean cover up for the Mccann's!

Does textusa really believe Scotland Yard would unsettle the Mccann's by putting down what they are actually upto?
Gocalo et al originally investigated an abduction too... however once you have investigated and can rule out one hypothesis you have to think of another.


With regard to the Gordon Brown issue; is this to do with the Hollie Grieg thing and also the other rumours online that he has been involved in shady activities himself?