Algarve Resident

http://www.algarveresident.com/0-45253/algarve/algarve-resident-online-poll-results-2011

Algarve Resident online poll results 2011
Updated: 13-Jan-2012

For the second consecutive year, the Madeleine McCann case attracted the highest response from readers to our weekly online poll last year.
For the second consecutive year, the Madeleine McCann case attracted the highest response from readers to our weekly online poll last year.

by INÊS LOPES ines.lopes@theresidentgroup.com

Nearly five years since Madeleine McCann disappeared from her family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, the case still continues to attract widespread interest, which is reflected in the Algarve Resident online poll results for 2011.

A question relating to the case received the most response from online readers last year.

VAT hikes, tolls, crime and the economy were the other hot topics featured in the Algarve Resident weekly online poll, which last year attracted more than 10,000 votes, an increase of 25% on the previous year.

Every week the Algarve Resident runs an online poll asking readers to give us their views on the news from wherever they are in the world.

2011 proved to be an interesting year for news reporting in the Algarve, with stories focusing extensively on the tolls which were implemented on December 8.

However, and mirroring 2010’s poll results, it was Madeleine McCann who again attracted the widest interest from online readers, followed closely by the Euro crisis and the controversial tax hikes affecting the tourism industry.

When we asked readers in the May 20 issue if they thought the McCanns should be aided by the UK’s Scotland Yard police in the search of their daughter Madeleine, 63% said they should while 37% disagreed.

Later in the year, in the December 23 issue’s poll, we asked if Portugal should go back to the Escudo in the face of a Euro crisis. The question we posed generated the second highest response from online visitors with a fairly even response - 44% voted in favour of the old currency against 56% who said the country should remain with the Euro.

Tax hikes affecting the Algarve tourism industry raised significant interest and was the third most popular poll subject. A vast majority of people (76%) who answered the November 18 poll question thought fewer tourists would visit the region if VAT increases for golf and restaurants were approved.

Indeed they were, and we shall be here to report on the outcome of the 2012 State Budget measures and effects on the economy.

But considering a great majority of readers (80%) said they would be eating out less when restaurants start charging VAT at 23%, 2012 will be a challenging year for the restaurant industry and businesses in general for that matter.

The government is seen as unsupportive towards businesses during particularly tough economic times as was reflected in the results we had to our poll in the September 30 issue – 72% thought the government was not providing enough support to businesses.

Tolls boycott

Tolls came fourth in the list of the most popular subjects featured in the Algarve Resident online poll, down two places from the previous year.

Although throughout the year the Algarve Resident asked readers for their opinion on a variety of angles related to the tolls, it was in the December 9 issue that our poll question on the subject attracted the most response.

We wanted to know if readers thought a toll charge on the A22 of nine cents a kilometre was expensive. 82% thought it was against 18% who said it wasn’t.

Earlier in the year, in July, we asked readers if they would be using the A22 once tolls were introduced (at the time the month for implementation was September). Some 62% said they wouldn’t, 26% would and 12% weren’t sure.

But it seems the majority of drivers are determined to boycott the government move as can be seen by the dramatic drop in traffic on the A22.

Austerity measures hitting the population hard this year are an essential evil and while most tax hikes are seen as inevitable, the added expense for using the A22 is described as “abusive”, particularly when the Algarve’s EN 125 is a poor alternative.

Online polls from the Algarve Resident are diverse in their scope reflecting the nature of the news in the region at specific times.

A spotlight was placed on Albufeira in the first semester of 2011 for all the wrong reasons. The Algarve Resident reported on several muggings involving tourists in the city known as the Algarve capital of tourism.

However, an attack that resulted in the death of a British holidaymaker made the headlines both in the national and international press.

Briton Ian Haggath died in a local hospital on May 25 after being assaulted by thieves in Albufeira 10 days earlier.

Tourism leaders continued to defend the reputation the Algarve had won as a safe destination for holidaymakers but admitted that police reinforcements in the region needed to be bolstered all year round.

Due to the serious nature of crimes in Albufeira, police authorities vowed to crackdown on violence in the area and increase police numbers.

In the June 8 issue, we wanted to know if the violent attacks in the region had put potential visitors off from coming to the Algarve. A fairly even response was received – 53% said it had against 47% who were happy to visit the Algarve.

Other subjects that received a significant response from readers related to the state of the economy in general, beach safety, retirement in the Algarve, council cutbacks and tourist products such as golf and cruise facilities.

"When we asked readers in the May 20 issue if they thought the McCanns should be aided by the UK’s Scotland Yard police in the search of their daughter Madeleine,"


But that isn't what they are doing, per se.

SY are reviewing the investigation into her disappearance.

And that isn't just a subtle difference, nit-picking or semantics.

Hi TEIN,

I think it was reported initially that the McCanns had moaned that the PJ might have missed some vital piece of info and that the case was shelved too
soon. The SY Police are meant to "Review", which suggests they will be looking for oversights by the PJ.....if they find that every report has been
investigated David Cameron will have a lot to answer for , spending £3.5 million of taxpayers money and the McCanns will lose any credibility they may
have left..

Hi Panda

And then there is the oft quoted comment from Amaral that all it would take is the cost of a postage stamp for the PJ to expend further effort.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Hi Panda

And then there is the oft quoted comment from Amaral that all it would take is the cost of a postage stamp for the PJ to expend further effort.

As I recall, the McCanns had 2 months to request the case be re-opened but they never made a request. After that, the PJ have consistently said they
would not re-open the case except if they received new evidence, so Amaral is wrong.

Yes, quite right: I should have said "would have taken".

The big question now is will new evidence emerge?

We've got the SY review and we've got potential further musings from Amaral during the Libel Case and in the second book (the latter couldn't be treated as evidence - unless of course any relevant stuff in it is already in the possession of PJ/SY somehow).

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Hi Panda

And then there is the oft quoted comment from Amaral that all it would take is the cost of a postage stamp for the PJ to expend further effort.

As I recall, the McCanns had 2 months to request the case be re-opened but they never made a request. After that, the PJ have consistently said they
would not re-open the case except if they received new evidence, so Amaral is wrong.

It would seem that way, so why does he say it? I've queried it on here before but never really got a satisfactory answer.

Hi Angelina,

In response to you and TEIN, obviously Amaral lnows more from the shelved files but whether he is allowed to divulge the info in Court is debateable.

Since SY will have access to them, I don"t see why Amaral should be denied if it is relevant to the case. We can forget the McCann claim that Amaral"s
Book affected the health of the Family. As for hindering the search for Madeleine, they did that themselves by not co-operating with the Police.
However, the main point is his contention that Madeleine died in 5a, is there more evidence in the shelved Files which the PJ knew to include in their Final
Report?

Panda wrote:Hi Angelina,

In response to you and TEIN, obviously Amaral lnows more from the shelved files but whether he is allowed to divulge the info in Court is debateable.

Since SY will have access to them, I don"t see why Amaral should be denied if it is relevant to the case. We can forget the McCann claim that Amaral"s
Book affected the health of the Family. As for hindering the search for Madeleine, they did that themselves by not co-operating with the Police.
However, the main point is his contention that Madeleine died in 5a, is there more evidence in the shelved Files which the PJ knew to include in their Final
Report?

Hi Panda,

If, as is quite often proclaimed to be the truth, this case was shelved because of some sort of high profile interference then I don't see how/why GA would be allowed to use any info he might have. I'm not convinced that the libel trial (assuming there is one) will bring forth loads revelations and info that we don't already have.

Hope that makes sense, in a rush as I'm going out now.

Well, on all counts, we'll find out soon enough

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well, on all counts, we'll find out soon enough

Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.

[quote="Panda] Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.[/quote]

I've not heard this rumour but I have heard that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral.

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well, on all counts, we'll find out soon enough

Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.

I've mixed feelings about that, but largely I agree, Panda.

See, if they drop it, wise heads will wonder why - especially after all their other efforts at litigation.

That might be more telling than if it goes ahead but Amaral is not permitted to give a "version of the truth" due to the need to keep within tight parameters for the Libel hearing.

But at least if they do drop it, there seems little impediment to him going ahead with publishing the second bewk.

Ditto if the Case does go ahead and he wins.

Palmeras16 wrote:

I've not heard this rumour but I have heard that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral.

This came up a couple of days ago - and no explanation is available to us.

Some might think this could be due to a weak defence case, others might think there are conflicts between the Judicial process that must be followed and Amaral's own agenda in responding to the Libel accusation.

Others may have different hypotheses altogether!


(How was that for fence-sitting balance?!)

Palmeras16 wrote:

Panda wrote: Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.

I've not heard this rumour but I have heard that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral.

Well, that is not what I heard at all, the version I heard was that Dr Amaral wanted a lawyer closer to home to save him trailing up to Lisbon every time he needed to discuss his legal business. If he is constrained financially then that would make sense. So I wouldn't read anything sinister into it until we know otherwise.

Besides, where did this "rumour" of the McCanns dropping the case, come from? Because I don't believe that they would be allowed to do that now, without having to pay all of the expenses to date.

Palmeras16 wrote:[quote="Panda] Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.

I've not heard this rumour but I have heard that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral. [/quote]~

Amaral changed his lawyer for the simple reason he wanted one 'closer to home' as they say, nothing more sinister than that, but, hey that wouldn't have given the pros any type of tittle tattle to Twitter about. The case is still listed in the Court schedule, and I'm sure at this late stage it can't be dropped as easily as that.

fred wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:[quote="Panda] Yes, let"s hope the rumour that the Mccanns have dropped the case is untrue.

I've not heard this rumour but I have heard that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral.

~

Amaral changed his lawyer for the simple reason he wanted one 'closer to home' as they say, nothing more sinister than that, but, hey that wouldn't have given the pros any type of tittle tattle to Twitter about. The case is still listed in the Court schedule, and I'm sure at this late stage it can't be dropped as easily as that.[/quote]

Thanks for confirming, Fred; I had read that somewhere too, just can't remember where offhand.

fred wrote: Amaral changed his lawyer for the simple reason he wanted one 'closer to home' as they say, nothing more sinister than that, but, hey that wouldn't have given the pros any type of tittle tattle to Twitter about. The case is still listed in the Court schedule, and I'm sure at this late stage it can't be dropped as easily as that.

Thank you Fred, I'm sure you're right, although I find it difficult to believe that, one would want to change their lawyer (who is well versed with the case) for a new one so close to the trial date. With modern communications technologies, distance is no longer a major drawback as demonstrated by the McCanns in Leicester and Carter Ruck in London.

Palmeras16 wrote:

fred wrote: Amaral changed his lawyer for the simple reason he wanted one 'closer to home' as they say, nothing more sinister than that, but, hey that wouldn't have given the pros any type of tittle tattle to Twitter about. The case is still listed in the Court schedule, and I'm sure at this late stage it can't be dropped as easily as that.

Thank you Fred, I'm sure you're right, although I find it difficult to believe that, one would want to change their lawyer (who is well versed with the case) for a new one so close to the trial date. With modern communications technologies, distance is no longer a major drawback as demonstrated by the McCanns in Leicester and Carter Ruck in London.

I think Leicester to London is considerably shorter than the distance Amaral was traveling to consult his lawyer.

Palmeras16 wrote:

fred wrote: Amaral changed his lawyer for the simple reason he wanted one 'closer to home' as they say, nothing more sinister than that, but, hey that wouldn't have given the pros any type of tittle tattle to Twitter about. The case is still listed in the Court schedule, and I'm sure at this late stage it can't be dropped as easily as that.

Thank you Fred, I'm sure you're right, although I find it difficult to believe that, one would want to change their lawyer (who is well versed with the case) for a new one so close to the trial date. With modern communications technologies, distance is no longer a major drawback as demonstrated by the McCanns in Leicester and Carter Ruck in London.

Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, I think I can hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped now.

Palmeras16 wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Will you pay for the extra expenses which arise from the distance?

Oh dear, I think I can hear the bottom of the barrel being scraped now.

Oh, really? So you don't think 300 Kms (one way) of distance between client and lawyer brings extra expenses? Glad to know you don't have to worry about the practical side of things that we, common mortals without millions in a fund, have to.

You have to wonder why this decision wasn"t made before now though , if it was only based on a question of distance which didn"t matter before.

It is true that a New lawyer at this late stage will not help Amaral, Cabrita is so well versed in the Madeleine case and whos who.

Even the road tolls between Lisbon and Faro are expensive, or imagine flying up? All adds up to the cost.

fred wrote:Even the road tolls between Lisbon and Faro are expensive, or imagine flying up? All adds up to the cost.

Morning fred, is it the case that this case is being tried in a different Court to the injunction case? After all these months why couldn"t the case be tried near the area where Amaral and Cabrita live?. It sounds like a case in the U.K. involving residents of Cornwall having to travel to Northumberland, is that
right?