John Buck's involvement with the McCanns

British diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCannsLast updated at 10:18 03 December 2007

Comments (0) Share The Foreign Office was alerted to fears over Gerry and Kate McCann by a British diplomat in Portugal just days after their daughter Madeleine went missing.
The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.
After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3.
Scroll down for more...
Gerry and Kate McCann: 'Lack of co-operation' with the Portuguese police?
Read more...
Six cracks in Murat's alibi as witnesses line up to cast doubt on original Madeleine suspect
New doubts over Madeleine evidence that made the McCanns suspects
Madeleine: British police to question the McCanns 'in days'
Have the McCanns really chosen the best private detectives to find Madeleine?
He also noted the couple's "lack of co-operation" with the Portuguese police.
The diplomat's concerns were made over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.
Contents of the letter were leaked to Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure over the weekend.
The diplomat expressed his fears after receiving instruction from the Foreign Office to provide "all possible assistance to the McCann couple".
The French-language paper printed excerpts of the letter, quoting the diplomat as saying: "With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple.
"Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous ­message."
Although the Government was quick to assist the McCanns in the days following Madeleine's disappearance, direct contact with the couple ceased when they were named as suspects.
La Dernière Heure pointed out that a majority of the diplomats originally involved in the case have now been taken off it.
Scroll down for more...
Still missing after seven months: Madeleine McCann
The then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sent special envoy Sheree Dodd to act as a "media liaison officer" for the pair soon after Madeleine vanished.
Ms Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, while the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, has retired.
John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, no longer works in the country.
Print this article Read later Email to a friend

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499340/British-diplomat-warned-Foreign-Office-concerns-McCanns.html#ixzz20gXnb1MT


Since we are discussing John Buck I found this article among my saved stuff......worth a read.

Clearly Diplomacy and Truth are not happy bed-fellows.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Clearly Diplomacy and Truth are not happy bed-fellows.

It would appear not TEIN. There was another item I kept , mostly a list of requests to the Foreign Office for specific information about the McCann
case and in every instance it was denied by the Freedom of Information Act. I think the only information you will ever get is something mundane and
have commented before how undemocratic Britain is, in the U.S. Freedom of Information means just that.

I think it's good the embassy got involved quickly, I only wish they'd do that with all cases of a missing child or person. A 3 year old is so vulnerable.

I don't underestimate the power of the papers to influence the government, once you get the notice that "it was the Sun wot won it" you realize you'd better look good in the papers. PR requirements for politicians are paramount.

But the papers were willing to attack McCanns as well, for the story. It took awhile for them to come out on the side of McCanns consistently and that of course was driven by Carter Ruck and the libel awards, and then by the necessity to play ball with Rebekah Brooks who was tryint to get the serialization deal for the book, for her papers.

The Murdoch and entrie red top empire sullies th ename of journalism and this kind of sh*t should in no way be confused with free "press." This isn't press, it's PR, and it's a few wealthy people putting pressure on the government far beyond the democratic principle of one man one vote.

widowan wrote:I think it's good the embassy got involved quickly, I only wish they'd do that with all cases of a missing child or person. A 3 year old is so vulnerable.

I don't underestimate the power of the papers to influence the government, once you get the notice that "it was the Sun wot won it" you realize you'd better look good in the papers. PR requirements for politicians are paramount.

But the papers were willing to attack McCanns as well, for the story. It took awhile for them to come out on the side of McCanns consistently and that of course was driven by Carter Ruck and the libel awards, and then by the necessity to play ball with Rebekah Brooks who was tryint to get the serialization deal for the book, for her papers.

The Murdoch and entrie red top empire sullies th ename of journalism and this kind of sh*t should in no way be confused with free "press." This isn't press, it's PR, and it's a few wealthy people putting pressure on the government far beyond the democratic principle of one man one vote.

It's not the ambassador's job to involve himself in such cases, unless there is a pressing reason to do so.
It's the job of the Consul, then the Consul General.
The whole involvement of the ambassador at a very early stage is deeply suspicious imo.

The normal sequence would be: local Consul alerted (he duly appeared at 10.00 am the following morning at the PJ office and was heard on the phone to say that the PJ were doing nothing).
The Consul will then liaise with the local police force and aid the parents with translations and anything else that may be required. At that time it was still not clear whether she had wandered off. Searches were going on everywhere.
If the Consul would have any problems he'd contact the Consul-General. The Consul-General would alert the FO.

What happened instead: the ambassador was there on the 4th of May, around midday I believe. Now, if you phone the embassy, you'll get the duty officer, who is certainly not going to wake the ambassador for a child which may have wandered off.
The earliest the ambassador would have heard would be at breakfast - did he then jump in the car for the 3 hours plus drive to PdL? He would not be likely to do that without instruction from the Foreign Office.
So why do we never hear about the Consul General and why was the Ambassador on the spot at that curiously early time?
Imo because the FO had a good reason to have him there, whilst they were sorting out the PR which was also at the service of the mcCanns within a very short time. (officially at the end of the month, but Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the FO on the 4th or 5th of May).

In short, imo the Ambassador was alerted prior to the 4th of May by the F.O.

You know more about it than I do, I"m not sure how these things work in the UK and PT. Didn't one of the McCanns friends live in the same street as the prime minister's brother, and he got involved?

I don't live in the UK, I know it's a small country, in the US I don't think anyone would contact the President for a missing child, unless it was the missing child of one of his cabinet or something. He'd see it on the news and in due time possibly call the parents to express concern although even that is very unlikely. He'd never do anything else if he got involved in that stuff.

Does the British Prime Minister have a habit in the UK of being directly involved with crimes against British persons?

I know Gerry was involved in some nuclear power plant scheme along with one of Brown's brothers... but even if Brown desperately wanted to help what he would have been told was a missing British child who'd been abducted, for whatever reason (to look good in the papers and not have it come out that he'd been appealed to and was ignoring it, or because his family was involved with McCanns in the nuclear power plant venture or ?) would he then direct the Ambassador to go there in person, rather than the Consul?

Maybe the Consul was on holiday at the time or back in the UK?

It's unusual but not to say suspicious, but the fact that the files can't be shared due to national security makes you wonder what's going on.

Normally you wouldn't have to put pressure on another country to investigate a crime unless you believe they are lazy and incompetent and fraught with corruption - see Aruba in Natalie Holloway case. Clearly if they were saying the PJ were doing nothing they must have that attitude. I must say, not a very good attitude for the people sent to be Ambassadors!

The embassies and all diplomatic staff are supposed to help citizens abroad. Not interfere with investigations or tell police Forces what to do. As you know there are many British people in the Algarve. Tourists and residents. Many British people have been involved in crimes over the years either as victims or perpetrators. It was the first time a Police Force had such a call from diplomatic people. That's why the Police knew right away this was a very different case.

tigger wrote:

It's not the ambassador's job to involve himself in such cases, unless there is a pressing reason to do so.
It's the job of the Consul, then the Consul General.
The whole involvement of the ambassador at a very early stage is deeply suspicious imo.

The normal sequence would be: local Consul alerted (he duly appeared at 10.00 am the following morning at the PJ office and was heard on the phone to say that the PJ were doing nothing).
The Consul will then liaise with the local police force and aid the parents with translations and anything else that may be required. At that time it was still not clear whether she had wandered off. Searches were going on everywhere.
If the Consul would have any problems he'd contact the Consul-General. The Consul-General would alert the FO.

What happened instead: the ambassador was there on the 4th of May, around midday I believe. Now, if you phone the embassy, you'll get the duty officer, who is certainly not going to wake the ambassador for a child which may have wandered off.
The earliest the ambassador would have heard would be at breakfast - did he then jump in the car for the 3 hours plus drive to PdL? He would not be likely to do that without instruction from the Foreign Office.
So why do we never hear about the Consul General and why was the Ambassador on the spot at that curiously early time?
Imo because the FO had a good reason to have him there, whilst they were sorting out the PR which was also at the service of the mcCanns within a very short time. (officially at the end of the month, but Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the FO on the 4th or 5th of May).

In short, imo the Ambassador was alerted prior to the 4th of May by the F.O.

The British Consulate were super quick to not only know, but to phone the GNR whilst they were searching

From GNR statement: Jose Maria Batista Roque

"He also refers to a situation when he was searching outside, near the pool, that someone from the OC whom he cannot identify, passed him a mobile phone, as a British Consulate employee who spoke in Portuguese, wanted to talk to the authorities. Upon speaking to him, he told him that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm

It is so weird.

What accounts for this? what is the connection?

I can't think that one or more of the T9 was involved in a pedo ring with someone in high government, that just makes no sense to me.

The papers DO have a huge influence on how the PM behaves as we have seen, but this is before the media were well on the scene and thinking to look good in the papers, is that enough to compel the PM to get the Ambassador involved? Hurry drive to PDL, I want to have my first act be to help find a little girl, so I can dispel the image people have of me as robotic and unpersonable?

What are the other options?

widowan wrote:It is so weird.

What accounts for this? what is the connection?

I can't think that one or more of the T9 was involved in a pedo ring with someone in high government, that just makes no sense to me.

The papers DO have a huge influence on how the PM behaves as we have seen, but this is before the media were well on the scene and thinking to look good in the papers, is that enough to compel the PM to get the Ambassador involved? Hurry drive to PDL, I want to have my first act be to help find a little girl, so I can dispel the image people have of me as robotic and unpersonable?

What are the other options?

There was one family that had the connections long before day 1.....the owner of Ocean Club, the Symingtons

widowan wrote:It is so weird.

What accounts for this? what is the connection?

I can't think that one or more of the T9 was involved in a pedo ring with someone in high government, that just makes no sense to me.

The papers DO have a huge influence on how the PM behaves as we have seen, but this is before the media were well on the scene and thinking to look good in the papers, is that enough to compel the PM to get the Ambassador involved? Hurry drive to PDL, I want to have my first act be to help find a little girl, so I can dispel the image people have of me as robotic and unpersonable?

What are the other options?

If, after some bad publicity, the Ambassador would get personally involved, there would first be a few phone calls to the parents and to the investigating officer. Then possibly a personal visit if bad publicity warranted it. There was no time to be featured as a robotic unfriendly person.
The way Kate talks about John Buck, it's as if he was working for them, getting a pat on the back from the McCanns.

The protective cover that was installed within hours is off the chart. No precedent, no reason that we can see.
I don't think the real reason is to do with a paedo ring - there was already a D notice on a previous looming scandal, so another one wouldn't be a problem for Tony Blair.
Whatever it was, it was enough to bring out the big guns right away. We'd all like to know why.

Could the Ambassador have had the connection with the CLUB not the McCanns?

That's whyhe went hot footing it down there?

That makes more sense. He was there to mitigate damage to a business, you have 9 British doctors or 5 docs and their middle class families there, you don't want that to affect the tourism trade. He was more protecting MW than the McCanns?

MW is an employer ... makes more sense to me that he'd intervene on their behalf to mitigate what could be horrible press, rather than that Gerry McCann had all this influence at that time.

They certainly learned how to use the press to GAIN influence since then. As it turns out it's not that difficult to do.

tigger wrote:

widowan wrote:It is so weird.

What accounts for this? what is the connection?

I can't think that one or more of the T9 was involved in a pedo ring with someone in high government, that just makes no sense to me.

The papers DO have a huge influence on how the PM behaves as we have seen, but this is before the media were well on the scene and thinking to look good in the papers, is that enough to compel the PM to get the Ambassador involved? Hurry drive to PDL, I want to have my first act be to help find a little girl, so I can dispel the image people have of me as robotic and unpersonable?

What are the other options?

If, after some bad publicity, the Ambassador would get personally involved, there would first be a few phone calls to the parents and to the investigating officer. Then possibly a personal visit if bad publicity warranted it. There was no time to be featured as a robotic unfriendly person.
The way Kate talks about John Buck, it's as if he was working for them, getting a pat on the back from the McCanns.

The protective cover that was installed within hours is off the chart. No precedent, no reason that we can see.
I don't think the real reason is to do with a paedo ring - there was already a D notice on a previous looming scandal, so another one wouldn't be a problem for Tony Blair.
Whatever it was, it was enough to bring out the big guns right away. We'd all like to know why.

McCanns like to behave as if they are in charge, and in a position to pat the Ambassador on the back (didn't seem to fool him however if he was sending emails about their story not adding up) or to have detectives removed from their case, to let Rebekah Brooks know that they'd like 3M of the UK slush fund to investigate the investigation, and to get up and storm out of interviews when the topic comes to their parenting skills or their status as arguidos. They don't like being out of control.

But I don't see an unprecedented protective cover slamming down immediately except insofar as they hired lawyers. Doesn't matter if you murdered your baby, once you hire a lawyer their job is to keep you out of jail. McCanns had lawyers and legal advice (one of the T7 is a lawyer) very early indeed.

John Buck went trotting down there but I don't know that that was about McCann having protection so much as the whole situation because it was Brits in a British resort, tourism, etc., the papers had been contacted, were on their way and would be dialing the Consulate or embassy to get a statement. You'd want to see for yourself what was going on in this situation, possibly, especially if connections with MW people.

Gerry and Kate are highly ambitious and competitive people by their own admission, and they are not only clever but intelligent and would understand, Gerry especially, the need to hire specialists. They had a phone tree going by 11pm that first night. Their media savvy friends too would know how to light a fire under the papers. I think Gerry can be quite a bully, also. Crying down the phone to his sister that the shutters had been jemmied - to set in motion this abduction story...

They weren't clapped in irons immediately IMO because that would have been foolish - the cops in the Eisenberg case made it obvious, as they did in the Peterson case, that they suspected the parents / the husband and those folks were immediately tipped off, and refused to cooperate.

they didn't have bumbling street cops involved in the McCann case; the PJ, with legal degrees and specialized training, would be more about building a proper case that would hold up in court -not just getting the tearful mum under a spotlight and bawling "we think you did it" at the first opportunity - the would be checking through all angles, rather than shoot their wad early, that was a strategic decision and in my opinion is more why they held back than because the Ambassador called and said about investigating an abduction. They did investigate it as an abduction and Also as a death.

I don't see the PJ failing to investigate McCanns - they surely did - although it proved unpopular for Amaral.

At that point - Brown putting the case on the agenda with Socrates as if there were something to NEGOTIATE about it along with the terms of their inclusion in the Eu or whatever else theywere chatting about - and Amaral subsequently losing his post - now that DOES smack of a protective curtain.

But by then Brown had already come out on the McCanns side and like most of the UK he probably didn't look too closely, he probably thought they were innocent and the papers just making a meal of them in a humiliating way - the red tops don't show the best side of Britain, that is for sure, look at the situation now with Murdoch, Brown would be aware of the need to play the game and tread carefully with the papers, so much is at stake.

Later I think Brown did pull back from his support, so did everyone, which is what had Kate spitting mad and using Rebekah Brooks and the serialization of the bewk to get leverage to threaten to humiliate Cameron since Theresa May was not playing ball. I saw the government holding back until they got the paper involved and threatened these people.

I think it's like the snow ball going down hill, it picks up a lot of things that sticks to it as it rolls and gains momentum the heavier it gets.

widowan wrote:
Normally you wouldn't have to put pressure on another country to investigate a crime unless you believe they are lazy and incompetent and fraught with corruption - see Aruba in Natalie Holloway case. Clearly if they were saying the PJ were doing nothing they must have that attitude. I must say, not a very good attitude for the people sent to be Ambassadors!
unquote
Just to say: in the above case the Dutch press and media were fairly solidly behind the Holloway family. There was a great outrage at the fact that the investigation was so flawed. In addition to that it was clear the the father of Joran van der Sloot was rich and managed to derail a lot of the investigation.
It was only after he died of a heart attack that the case was taken up again.
De Vries (an independent crime reporter) did a documentary on the whole thing, even then Joran got away and only got caught because he killed a girl in Peru.
Now he's going to get married - I don't think the Holloways have yet been able to bury their daughter?

I searched here and found Buck had already been discussed here, all I would add is that on the link I gave Ribiero says Buck phoned him at 11pm on 3rd May, how come they were so convinced Madeleine would not be found during the search???  If Madeleine was reported missing and the Police arrived at 10.40 pm Gerry McCann phoned Blair at 10pm apparently!!!

Why is none of this in the news? This is a British Ambassador speaking for heavens sake!

September 21 2007 (Source: Guardian/Wikileaks)

On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."

Ellis informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues.

"Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively".

He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

Freja53 wrote:Why is none of this in the news? This is a British Ambassador speaking for heavens sake!

September 21 2007 (Source: Guardian/Wikileaks)

   On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."
   
   Ellis informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues.
   
   "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively".
   
   He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

Hi Freya53.....it was, the Daily Mail reported it but the then Government used the Freedom of information act to deny any requests for information. I have often said it took two U.S. Reporters to oust a President yet the British are denied so much information . Tony Blair famously or should I say
infamously put a D Notice on the Sunday Herald reporting of pedphilia or homosexuality in Government.

Panda wrote:

Freja53 wrote:Why is none of this in the news? This is a British Ambassador speaking for heavens sake!

September 21 2007 (Source: Guardian/Wikileaks)

   On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."
   
   Ellis informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues.
   
   "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively".
   
   He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

Hi Freya53.....it was, the Daily Mail reported it but the then Government used the Freedom of information act to deny any requests for information. I have often said it took two U.S. Reporters to oust a President yet the British are denied so much information . Tony Blair famously or should I say
infamously put a D Notice on the Sunday Herald reporting of pedphilia or homosexuality in Government.

Indeed they did - but unlike USA, in GB it takes more than a newspaper report or two to get the public out of its comfort zone. Blame the public not the press or politicians in this case. Politicians only get up to what they perceive they can get away with - in GB that is a hell of a lot.

T4two wrote:

Panda wrote:

Freja53 wrote:Why is none of this in the news? This is a British Ambassador speaking for heavens sake!

September 21 2007 (Source: Guardian/Wikileaks)

   On September 21, newly-arrived British Ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis informed US Ambassador Hoffman that "it was the British police that developed the current evidence against Madeleine McCann's parents."
   
   Ellis informed the Ambassador that former British Ambassador John Buck had accepted a private-sector position at a UK gas company and that his departure had nothing to do with bilateral issues.
   
   "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively".
   
   He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

Hi Freya53.....it was, the Daily Mail reported it but the then Government used the Freedom of information act to deny any requests for information. I have often said it took two U.S. Reporters to oust a President yet the British are denied so much information . Tony Blair famously or should I say
infamously put a D Notice on the Sunday Herald reporting of pedphilia or homosexuality in Government.

Indeed they did - but unlike USA, in GB it takes more than a newspaper report or two to get the public out of its comfort zone. Blame the public not the press  or politicians in this case. Politicians only get up to what they perceive they can get away with - in GB that is a hell of a lot.

I used "what do they know, a good facility for trying to get information for you and asked if SY had interviewed Halligen while he was in Holloway Prison regarding the £300,000 supposedly paid to him by the Fund. The reply from SY was that they were unable to provide such information ...exactly 10 days later Halligen was deported to the States, now why do you think that was?????