Petition for a full public enquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance

Irish Eyes wrote:I'm surprised to see you haven't bothered to sign it despite monitoring it.

Don't you approve of it enough to sign it?

Imo it's a phishing trick. 2000 signatures won't change anything.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/788/286/303

Judge Mental wrote:
@ Draco

Indeed one would have to ask the police about a man named Gordon Park who hung himself after being handed a life sentence for having weighted down Carol Ann Park's body in Coniston Water in 1976, He was originally arrested in 1997 when her body was discovered, and re-arrested and charged circa 2004. Or perhaps one should consider reading about Christie and his activities at 10 Rillington Place.

Ah yes, I could or should add
c. If her body is found with evidence of who's involved, who's hidden the body.

@ Draco

A body is not necessarily needed as proof, Draco.

The two cases cited above were to simply to show there have been occasions where a person has been wrongly accused and tried, as was the case for Timothy John Evans, and that on other occasions a great many years had to pass before people were finally convicted. Park thought he had got away with the murder of his wife when he was released after his first arrest, yet he was finally re-arrested in 2004 because of an unusual type of knot.in a rope.

Draco wrote:

Irish Eyes wrote:I'm surprised to see you haven't bothered to sign it despite monitoring it.

Don't you approve of it enough to sign it?

Imo it's a phishing trick. 2000 signatures won't change anything.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/788/286/303

You must try telling that to politicians when they are trying to win their seats in Parliament at the next election.

One would have you know that sometimes less than 2000 crosses on ballot papers (without so much as a sniff of a signature) have been the deciding factor in whether a potential MP boards the gravy train for four years or has to go out and work for a living. So please do not underestimate the power of the people, Draco.

One is sorry to see that you have such a pessimistic outlook on everything all of the time so please PM me if things are troubling you, and one will try to bring a little positivity into your life..

Latest signatory on the petition:


9:21 am PDT, Jul 28, William Hill, United Kingdom
Dear Home Secretary, It is of the utmost importance that a public enquiry be instigated. I live within two miles of the Mc Canns and there is still very strong feelings and opinions as to what happened to Madeleine. The McCanns can only bring closure to this sad affair if the truth is determined. Sincerely, William L Hill

Judge Mental wrote:@ Draco

A body is not necessarily needed as proof, Draco.

The two cases cited above were to simply to show there have been occasions where a person has been wrongly accused and tried, as was the case for Timothy John Evans, and that on other occasions a great many years had to pass before people were finally convicted. Park thought he had got away with the murder of his wife when he was released after his first arrest, yet he was finally re-arrested in 2004 because of an unusual type of knot.in a rope.

Thank you for proving my point.

Okay, recap:
I wrote "This case will only be solved, Madeleine will only get justice, if
a. she's found alive or
b. someone who knows what's happened, comes forward and makes a statement, confesses, leads them to the body.
c. if her body is found with evidence of who's involved, who's hidden the body."

Gordon Park was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Part of the evidence was found when Carol Ann Park's body was found.
But he didn't get charged and convicted at that time. It was only after a former cellmate made a confession to the police about what Gordon told him. After that the police went back and found a rock that linked to Gordon's house.
Gordon talked, someone came forward, they found evidence near the body, that's my b. and c. (Seems there's still some controversy about his guilt or innocence?).

Re the petition, I'm not a dreamer nor a pessimist, I'm a realist. Let's wait and see who's got it right, shall we?

ETA and I really object to a petition of which the person who's started it is using an alias. If he/she is doing a genuine attempt, why not using his/her own name?

Should anybody still not believe in the power of signing petitions, please note how easy it is to amass more than 20.000 signatures within only a short period of time:

Petition to:
scrap the plans to tax phone lines to subsidise other peoples broadband
This petition is now closed, as its deadline has passed.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the plans to tax phone lines to subsidise other peoples broadband. More details

Submitted by Tony Humphreys – Deadline to sign up by: 27 February 2010 – Signatures: 20,243

More details from petition creator
I request that the Government scraps any plans to add 50p a month tax to phone lines to subsidise further broadband roll out. It is wholly unfair to tax my phone line to pay for someone else's broadband, and it is as simple as that. It is recognised that rural areas do suffer a slower connection and higher costs, but they have fantastic views, clean air and a safer environment - its a choice people have to live in the country - and a decision they take. Please see sense, and stop this poll tax - broadband is not a vital service.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/scrap50pphonetax/

Government response
The Government confirmed in the Budget that it will not introduce the proposed duty on landlines. Instead, it will drive private sector investment in superfast broadband by making regulatory changes to reduce the cost of roll-out.

We are keen to avoid a digital divide between those who enjoy modern communications and those who – for whatever reason – do not. The Coalition Government is therefore committed to stimulating access to reliable internet broadband across the country through whatever technology is required. We are examining options of how to deliver this.

The recent Budget also confirmed that there are to be three pilot projects that will bring superfast broadband to rural and hard-to-reach areas. These are projects that will not only benefit those living in these areas, but will also provide Government with vital information about how we can best target Government intervention and make next generation broadband viable in even the most challenging areas.

BDUK is also working towards the delivery of universal broadband service at two Megabits per second. This will be funded by a portion of the Digital Switchover underspend within the TV licence fee.

@ Draco

You do not seem to have considered your last post as carefully as you think you have, so one will ignore it for now. However, with regard to the ETA part of your last post: ''ETA and I really object to a petition of which the person who's started it is using an alias. If he/she is doing a genuine attempt, why not using his/her own name?''

If you 'really object', then do not sign it. Is anybody twisting your arm up your back or sticking needles in your eyes?.

How do you know it is somebody using an alias? How does this invalidate their said attempt?

Why should somebody have to use their own name when they are at liberty to use an alias? You are currently using an alias on here. Would you prefer us to ignore you until you tell us your real name and come back with a bank reference and two utility bills? .

The more important point is 2000 valid and verifiable signatures and not who is organising the petition under what name? This is about Madeleine isnt it?

Does it matter if it is tom dick or harry under whichever name is organising the petition, shouldnt it be about the purpose of the petition?

Can I be devil's advocate for a moment?

A serious petition will, at some point, be handed over to officialdom for their perusal and consideration, presumably.
If said officialdom cotton on to the petiton organiser's anagram, they might not be inclined to take it quite as seriously as if it had a genuine organiser's name on it.

However sincere the aims and objectives of the petition are, I believe it is always wise not to give officialdom any excuse, however small, to reject it. Because if there is any opportunity for them to do nothing, they will grab it.

IMO, a petition is a formal, official document and should be formatted as such.
It is not the same as a forum, where by convention usernames are acceptable and the norm. A forum is, in the main, a meeting point for informal discussion under quite different circumstances -- I can't imagine any conditions under which such material would be presented to anyone in authority.

What if some signees decided to 'follow the leader' and sign the petition with anagrams of people connected with the case?

Cat McKenna? Paddy Naive? Jean Rannet?

I don't think the organiser would be very happy with that.

JMHO.

I do think that the petition should have a real name on it (ie the sponsor). Otherwise all the hard work collecting names may be in vain.

I have not signed it yet for this reason, it does need a real sponsor.

baconbutty wrote:However sincere the aims and objectives of the petition are, I believe it is always wise not to give officialdom any excuse, however small, to reject it. Because if there is any opportunity for them to do nothing, they will grab it.

I agree, we only have to look at the way the HO continue to dodge answering FOI questions.

The person originating this petition would have to provide real identity to authority in the first place to requisite this petition I would imagine.

Good Morning

I think that the petitioner will identify themselves when the time comes, but if they do wish to remain anonymous The Madeleine Foundation will take responsibility for it as it is in line with our cause. If there was a problem, I would be more than happy to put my own name forward.

sharonl wrote:Good Morning

I think that the petitioner will identify themselves when the time comes, but if they do wish to remain anonymous The Madeleine Foundation will take responsibility for it as it is in line with our cause. If there was a problem, I would be more than happy to put my own name forward.

Why don't you just admit that you know who the petitioner is and that it's most likely Bennett or yourself? Anyone would think the petitioner would be worried about CR in asking for a public enquiry.

Well I think if people want to petition then that is up to them and others who dont support it should just keep their nose out, it doesnt affect them.

Irish Eyes wrote:

sharonl wrote:Good Morning

I think that the petitioner will identify themselves when the time comes, but if they do wish to remain anonymous The Madeleine Foundation will take responsibility for it as it is in line with our cause. If there was a problem, I would be more than happy to put my own name forward.

Why don't you just admit that you know who the petitioner is and that it's most likely Bennett or yourself? Anyone would think the petitioner would be worried about CR in asking for a public enquiry.

Irish Eyes. please would you give some indication as to why anybody would be worried about CR in this instance? One hopes you have some evidence to support your finger-pointing. One of one's own fingers is already poised to ban you because of your nonsensical contributions and failure to entertain or amuse

littlepixie wrote:Well I think if people want to petition then that is up to them and others who dont support it should just keep their nose out, it doesnt affect them.

Quite right.

It is such a shame that there is so much mystery and nonsense surrounding the disappearance of this little girl.

What struck me initially as a good idea now leaves me mouth agog as we hear it is a conn to get email addresses then it isn't a conn. The person starting the petition uses an anagram of the Portuguese detective's name instead of their own. There is no good reason for that then there is a good reason for that depending on whose post you read. It just seems sometimes that this is all about people playing games with each other and hurting others in the process.

I do hope that some good comes from the petition for Madeleine but I am not so sure that any will now. If it is taken seriously even with the anagram name then it seems many people will try to rubbish it to ruin any credibility it might have held.

Just call me confused but comfortable to be sat on a fence forever hoping that one day somebody with appropriate authority and proof can accurately point the finger where it needs to be pointed so that whoever was involved with this little girls disappearance is caught and dealt with.

I may change my mind about signing the petition, but for now there's too many unanswered questions for me to do so. Like :

If the petitioner wants to get as many signatures as possible, he/she shouldn't have used an alias. If there's nothing to be ashamed of, no dodgy tricks by anybody to collect names and email addresses, then I don't see why he/she couldn't use his/her own name.

It's also not clear to what government it's addressed. The Portuguese, the UK? Would either of these governments bother about the opinion of foreigners who are signing the petition?

What guarantee has the petitioner, or the government, that the people who've signed the petition are genuine people, not made up characters with made up throwaway email addresses?

The teneur of the comments makes it (even for the government) pretty clear this is not a request for an open minded enquiry.
How about the comments that are breaking the CARE2 TERMS OF SERVICE? Will they be deleted?
http://www.care2.com/help/general/tos.html

What if there's a been a public enquiry and the status quo isn't changed? What's next?

Is the person who's started the petition a member of the Foundation?

Why is Mrs Morais not supporting this petition? Why are the people over at MM sceptical about it?
What did you do, are you doing to change their minds?

When will the petition close? By a date or by reaching the target (2.000 signatures)?

@ Draco

Having just read your previous post, may one suggest that the best thing for you to do is to start your own petition and show us all how it should be done. Far better for you to lead us by example than watch us become embroiled in something you are not sure about. One looks forward to signing your own petition.

@ JM Did you start this petition? Are you a member of the Foundation? How many successful petitions did the Madeleine Foundation start? And why don't they answer the questions, they are perfectly reasonable.

Judge Mental wrote:@ Draco

Having just read your previous post, may one suggest that the best thing for you to do is to start your own petition and show us all how it should be done. Far better for you to lead us by example than watch us become embroiled in something you are not sure about. One looks forward to signing your own petition.

Doubt anyone will sign Draco's petition even if made in her name given at birth without the usual spanish inquisition dealt out first!

Even, if TB or any MF member were to do in their given name they would still be damned from a different angle.

Let's go through the list of people who if so inclined to do it but wont face criticism? Bren? Joanna Morais? Jkh? Susan Menez? DB? or any of the less known personalities?
Which of these won't people hesitate to criticise before they sign, if they sign at all?

twats, nutters, pros and their irks won't raise a petition for the simple reason they think Maddie is still alive and maybe giving her tupperworth to her captor.

Fence sitters (where this case is concerned) are just people pretending to be without own mind- flow aimlessly with the strongest current.

As for the mccanns? AHHhhh.........the mccanns they need it like holes in their heads or should I say they'll never ask for FULL and COMPLETE review, not even over their dead bodies!

So who's the only courageous or possible who could have put this up? Does 2 + 2 makes five always?

Draco wrote:@ JM Did you start this petition? Are you a member of the Foundation? How many successful petitions did the Madeleine Foundation start? And why don't they answer the questions, they are perfectly reasonable.

There is a possibility that one may have started the petition. What if one were to say one had? Would one feel more confident signing a petition started by myself 'Judge Mental'?

What business is it of yours as to whether I am a member of The Madeleine Foundation or not? May one suggest a trip to The Madeleine Foundation website to find out how many successful petitions The Foundation have started, or alternatively ask that you make contact with Tony Bennett privately, and see if he will give you the time of day and answer your questions. Better still, why not apply for membership so that you feel you are doing something worthwhile instead of sitting around asking questions that are of no use to anybody else?