Re: *NEW* - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

by JRP 27.02.17 13:52

If there is one thing the "establishment" covers up very well, it is pedophilia.
I confess that I don't know the reason for Madeleine's death, but certain aspects which have been discussed, such as the Gaspar statement, the make-up photo Lolita image, the dining with Clement Freud led me to vote 6.

I noticed a fair percentage of votes going for the no cover up choice, which surprised me a little. Why then, if that's the case, haven't they been arrested and formally questioned? because there's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence which points at their involvement. The same sort of behaviour which has led to the arrest of others in similar cases.

by Guest 27.02.17 14:12

JRP wrote:If there is one thing the "establishment" covers up very well, it is pedophilia.
I confess that I don't know the reason for Madeleine's death, but certain aspects which have been discussed, such as the Gaspar statement, the make-up photo Lolita image, the dining with Clement Freud led me to vote 6.

I noticed a fair percentage of votes going for the no cover up choice, which surprised me a little. Why then, if that's the case, haven't they been arrested and formally questioned? because there's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence which points at their involvement. The same sort of behaviour which has led to the arrest of others in similar cases.

I voted for the no cover up option - I agree with your assertion why haven't they been arrested yet - I tend towards cronyism. I known the British Ambassador to Portugal warned the government not to be taken in by the McCanns but they ignored him and shortly after he resigned. I tend towards the McCanns lobbying Blair and Brown and convincing them that they were victims of Portuguese incompetence - so there's probably a bit of 'Johnny foreigner can't be trusted' in it. Also, by commanding the media and controlling the narrative, Blair, whose wife was a Liverpudlian Catholic, was probably taken in, just like he was by Bush and well - the list is just too long. When the baton was passed to Cameron, Ester McVeigh a close friend of Kate Mccann, was well positioned to influence and keep the gravy train rolling on. I hope now the truth will out but if we don't get an announcement that suggests, let's just say a change of direction, then I will gladly back pedal and have a rethink.

by Carrry On Doctor 27.02.17 14:29

Regarding a cover up, I thought the John Buck (FCO diplomat) article last year was quite revealing.

Simply, it would appear that Gordon Brown, and for political gain, seized on an opportunity to help put a very British family, seemingly in crisis. The cavalry (agencies, diplomats etc) were all dispatched as part of the show, with spin being provided by media expert Clarence Mitchell.

I can only assume that by the time the red flags started to be waived, any U-turn would have been hugely embarrassing. Since then, having passed through successive administrations, the issue has snowballed into a looming international and diplomatic crisis.

A cover up by the Government ? Absolutely, but to save face.

Mrs May can't be looking forward to this one coming out. It continued through her watch as Home Secretary.

A close second to Brexit ? Maybe !

by suzyjohnson 27.02.17 14:52

JRP wrote:
I noticed a fair percentage of votes going for the no cover up choice, which surprised me a little. Why then, if that's the case, haven't they been arrested and formally questioned? because there's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence which points at their involvement.

The McCanns have been arrested and formally questioned ...... by the Portuguese.

Regarding Operation Grange ....

1) A lot of the evidence is circumstantial. I would think SY would look to establish what other evidence there was before making any arrests

2) An arrest in the Uk might well place the McCann family into a similar situation to that of Karen Matthews. The police would then need to provide protection particularly for the McCann children.

by JRP 27.02.17 15:36

suzyjohnson wrote:
JRP wrote:
I noticed a fair percentage of votes going for the no cover up choice, which surprised me a little. Why then, if that's the case, haven't they been arrested and formally questioned? because there's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence which points at their involvement.
Thanks for the reply.

The McCanns have been arrested and formally questioned ...... by the Portuguese.

But they were allowed to fly home. They may have been charged if they'd have stayed, and knowing that, the UK police haven't even questioned them.

Regarding Operation Grange ....

1) A lot of the evidence is circumstantial. I would think SY would look to establish what other evidence there was before making any arrests.

People get arrested all the time on circumstantial evidence, courts are full of people who plead not guilty.

2) An arrest in the Uk might well place the McCann family into a similar situation to that of Karen Matthews. The police would then need to provide protection particularly for the McCann children.

Is that a reason for not arresting them? I would imagine anyone arrested for a serious crime, would have an effect on the wider family.

by MayMuse 27.02.17 19:14

The McCanns have had the government, authorities, police and MSM eating out of their hands, and people think there is no cover up?
They have afforded The best lawyers to do their dirty work using public donations AND hired bogus detectives who apparently robbed them of hundreds of thousands and have yet to sue!

Stunned at that revelation, as stunned as Redwoods "crechedad" walking the wrong way.

Of course there is a massive cover up, if this has all played out as it has for the past 10 years and it not been part of a "cover up" then it would have been resolved in the first instance.

No, there is something very wrong with the UK's intervention as much as there is something very wrong with the McCanns and Tapas account of events.

IMO

by suzyjohnson 27.02.17 19:22

JRP wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
JRP wrote:
I noticed a fair percentage of votes going for the no cover up choice, which surprised me a little. Why then, if that's the case, haven't they been arrested and formally questioned? because there's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence which points at their involvement.
Thanks for the reply.

The McCanns have been arrested and formally questioned ...... by the Portuguese.

But they were allowed to fly home. They may have been charged if they'd have stayed, and knowing that, the UK police haven't even questioned them.

Regarding Operation Grange ....

1) A lot of the evidence is circumstantial. I would think SY would look to establish what other evidence there was before making any arrests.

People get arrested all the time on circumstantial evidence, courts are full of people who plead not guilty.

2) An arrest in the Uk might well place the McCann family into a similar situation to that of Karen Matthews. The police would then need to provide protection particularly for the McCann children.

Is that a reason for not arresting them? I would imagine anyone arrested for a serious crime, would have an effect on the wider family.

I think they were allowed to fly home because the PJ couldn't prove their case one way or another. Having spent a fortune trying to locate the missing child, I expect the Portuguese finally decided that this was a British problem ( I think there was a certain diplomatic pressure along the lines of this has all been a misunderstanding, translation issues etc.) Plus, I think it was viewed that the McCanns, having lost their daughter, had suffered enough already.
By taking part in a reconstruction of events the PJ may have been able to move their investigation forward, but all the tapas group refused to do so.

But there is not just the issue of a missing child. If the McCanns do know what happened to their daughter, then the fund is fraudulent. This would be up to the British police to investigate not the Portuguese.

People do get arrested on circumstantial evidence all the time, but not on this scale. This case has had so much publicity, speculation, so many people have donated, and in Portugal given of their time to look for Madeleine. So many people have lost out financially as well.

I think the response to an arrest may well be similar to that of Karen Matthews, she couldn't return to her home because the police considered she would be in danger. I don't think the police would arrest them until they were absolutely certain. (They already have a series of interviews given by the tapas group) it would be very expensive to provide the McCann family with round-the-clock protection, or new identities.

by MrsC 27.02.17 20:13

I almost pushed the button for No 6 because I think that scenario could be a part of what happened to MM and why there has been a cover-up.

BUT

Why, if there is a high level, elite paedophile ring, which the McCann people are involved with, did we get to hear about Madeleine at all?

Surely if the establishment were involved in any way the cover-up would have begun at the very beginning - we need not have known anything about an 'abduction', the PJ need not have been called - it's not as if they count people in and out of the country. Madeleine's passing could have been explained to her extended family and friends as a tragic holiday accident, a tiny coffin presented and a private family funeral would have brought closure to the whole thing. If the establishment were involved all this could have been made to happen quite easily.

We need never have known about it. So why do we?

by Verdi 27.02.17 20:38

Allowed to leave? They did a runner - a last minute arrangement when the panic button was hit.

Lest they forget, the establishment were already well and truly in control, it was but a travel arrangement away. It was claimed that the return to the UK was planned well before but look at the detail - the return of the hired car, the villa rental, the 'we will never leave Portugal without Madeleine', the publicity stunt, the arguido status !!!

Little wheel spin and spin - big wheel turn around and around.

by Verdi 27.02.17 20:50

Operation Grange has now been 'operational' for nigh on six years. First a comprehensive review of all coordinated case files, followed by a renewed investigation taken back to point zero - a totally independent unbiased operation with a remit of 'abduction' as if it occurred in the UK.

Red alert!

They have publicly admitted that they've been tracking burglars and tractor drivers and paedophile syndicates and child traffickers as their central focus. They have reduced manpower (not so sure about expenditure) to an absolute minimum - a filing clerk and a tea trolley.

Does that really sound like they are on the case? Do you really believe they are about to crack the case when all else have failed? Do you really see any evidence of evidence after 9.9 years of stagnation? Do you really think they are about to issue an arrest warrant?

Dream on..

by Guest 27.02.17 23:28

For me, establishment involvement and powerful people abusing their power is not the same as a cover up. Mrs C raises an important point - why the media circus? Why signpost it? We only need to check the phone records to see where the impetuous comes from, GM spent the night he should have been looking for his daughter networking! The media in this country is truly abysmal and investigative journalism is a thing of the past but there's a world of difference between not bothering to properly investigate, being foolish and unquestioning and deliberately concealing and colluding.

Go easy on me Verdi... I'm a tired bunny.

by Columbo 28.02.17 12:15

What's_up_doc? wrote:For me, establishment involvement and powerful people abusing their power is not the same as a cover up. Mrs C raises an important point - why the media circus? Why signpost it? We only need to check the phone records to see where the impetuous comes from, GM spent the night he should have been looking for his daughter networking! The media in this country is truly abysmal and investigative journalism is a thing of the past but there's a world of difference between not bothering to properly investigate, being foolish and unquestioning and deliberately concealing and colluding.

Go easy on me Verdi... I'm a tired bunny.

This is what I have always found confusing about this case. If the "establishment" wanted this covered-up, it would have been relatively easy to do that by acting very differently at the beginning. No fund, no big hoo-ha, no travelling ambassador - instead a "tragic holiday accident", a friendly autopsy and it's quickly yesterday's news. Instead we had the media circus, the fund, the visit to Rome and so on, continuing for 10 years now.

I'm sure there is a cover up and that guilty parties have been protected. But, I can't for the life of me work out which of the polled scenarios is the right one. Nor why TM weren't told to skulk off quietly at an early stage. Have they got some dirt on others?

10 years of intrigue, confusion and frustration.

by Janerj 28.02.17 16:06

I presumed they decided at an early stage that being in the media was the best thing and I suppose got locked into it. The more threatened they are by Goncalo's book or whatever the more they think they should push the media thing.

by Cmaryholmes 28.02.17 16:55

I have been pondering this poll for a few days, but cannot answer because I feel there is so much confusion as to make it nigh on impossible to know the reason for the cover up. Confusion has been the Mccann's greatest friend.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.02.17 18:50

Cmaryholmes wrote:I have been pondering this poll for a few days, but cannot answer because I feel there is so much confusion as to make it nigh on impossible to know the reason for the cover up. Confusion has been the McCanns' greatest friend.

The actual quote by Gerry McCann, which everyone understandably interprets and remembers as 'confusion is good', was:

"And in fcat, one of the slight positivis in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not". [Scottish TV interview, 24 August 2007].

By any yardstick, that is an extraordinary comment, highly revealing of his innermost thoughts...it's like the whole string of words is one gynormous 'Freudian slip'. I'm sure Hobs would have something to say about it.

'Confusion is good' is actually a pretty good summary of it.

I'm surprised really that we have any votes at all for 'there is no cover-up'.

Three things stand out for me:

1. The absolutely extraordinary extent of the high-level involvement of the government, the security services, top lawyers and top PR folk, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, from Day One

2. The absolutely extraordinary conduct of the criminals and misfits and dodgy agencies used by the McCanns, apparently to 'search for Madeleine', and

3. The absolutey extraordinary conduct of Operation Grange, which has been going for very nearly six years.

All of this - and £20 million-plus spent by various police forces and the McCanns' own 'investigators' - with no-one a jot or tittle nearer knowing what really happened to her.

As to the reason for the cover-up, yes I have voted...but it's a secret ballot yes

...and I want to know what everyone else thinks

.

by suzyjohnson 28.02.17 20:03

Tony Bennett wrote:

I'm surprised really that we have any votes at all for 'there is no cover-up'.

Three things stand out for me:

1. The absolutely extraordinary extent of the high-level involvement of the government, the security services, top lawyers and top PR folk, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, from Day One

2. The absolutely extraordinary conduct of the criminals and misfits and dodgy agencies used by the McCanns, apparently to 'search for Madeleine', and

3. The absolutey extraordinary conduct of Operation Grange, which has been going for very nearly six years.

All of this - and £20 million-plus spent by various police forces and the McCanns' own 'investigators' - with no-one a jot or tittle nearer knowing what really happened to her.

The thing is though, if the government were involved in a cover-up, would it really be necessary to involve all those people, and spend all that money? At any stage during the 10 years they could have simplified it all.

Five years ago SY could have said they had reviewed the Portuguese investigation and there weren't any further leads to follow up for example.

Weren't the McCanns themselves responsible for recruiting top lawyers and dodgy investigative agencies?

Why on earth would the government let them recruit Kevin Halligen or Metodo 3? (unnecessary complications)

by Verdi 28.02.17 21:04

suzyjohnson wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I'm surprised really that we have any votes at all for 'there is no cover-up'.

Three things stand out for me:

1. The absolutely extraordinary extent of the high-level involvement of the government, the security services, top lawyers and top PR folk, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, from Day One

2. The absolutely extraordinary conduct of the criminals and misfits and dodgy agencies used by the McCanns, apparently to 'search for Madeleine', and

3. The absolutey extraordinary conduct of Operation Grange, which has been going for very nearly six years.

All of this - and £20 million-plus spent by various police forces and the McCanns' own 'investigators' - with no-one a jot or tittle nearer knowing what really happened to her.

The thing is though, if the government were involved in a cover-up, would it really be necessary to involve all those people, and spend all that money? At any stage during the 10 years they could have simplified it all.

They do though don't they - time and time again. Trouble is, there are too many interfering beggars smilie

that won't let things drop. Look how many times Princess Diana's death as been reviewed and re-investigated, a simple example that everyone knows about - but still the truth has been concealed. How much has that cost the tax payer I wonder.

Wherever black deeds are involved, there will always be a hundred year cover-up necessary, or death whichever comes first.

by mootle 28.02.17 21:17

Quite right Verdi

D Notices
Super Injunctions
50, 70 100 year secrecy orders
These things all still exist (I believe) and are public knowledge

So to dismiss the possibility of a cover up is illogical

by suzyjohnson 28.02.17 22:41

Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:

The thing is though, if the government were involved in a cover-up, would it really be necessary to involve all those people, and spend all that money? At any stage during the 10 years they could have simplified it all.
They do though don't they - time and time again. Trouble is, there are too many interfering beggars that won't let things drop. Look how many times Princess Diana's death as been reviewed and re-investigated, a simple example that everyone knows about - but still the truth has been concealed. How much has that cost the tax payer I wonder.

There was no need whatsoever, in terms of government involvement in a cover-up, to launch a £12 million Scotland Yard investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. The government could simply have offered to send one or two police officers to assist their own choice of detective agency in Portugal, (a government grant similar to that offered to the Needham family, the rest paid for from public donations to the Find Madeleine Fund). Then they could have told the McCanns not to draw attention the themselves by suing anyone.

by Verdi 28.02.17 23:08

suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:

The thing is though, if the government were involved in a cover-up, would it really be necessary to involve all those people, and spend all that money? At any stage during the 10 years they could have simplified it all.
They do though don't they - time and time again. Trouble is, there are too many interfering beggars that won't let things drop. Look how many times Princess Diana's death as been reviewed and re-investigated, a simple example that everyone knows about - but still the truth has been concealed. How much has that cost the tax payer I wonder.

There was no need whatsoever, in terms of government involvement in a cover-up, to launch a £12 million Scotland Yard investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. The government could simply have offered to send one or two police officers to assist their own choice of detective agency in Portugal, (a government grant similar to that offered to the Needham family, the rest paid for from public donations to the Find Madeleine Fund). Then they could have told the McCanns not to draw attention the themselves by suing anyone.

I don't believe Operation Grange was initially launched with a 12 million budget in mind. The McCanns repeatedly stated that they wanted a central coordination of all documentation relating to the investigation into Madeleine disappearance - the PJ files (including the pages not published), Leicestershire Constabulary's files and any other relevant documented account. Their wish was granted through the auspices of the Home Secretary, Theresa May and the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron.

Operation Grange commenced with a review of all the documented information - including for some extraordinary reason, intelligence harvested by the assorted private detectives hired by team McCann, not forgetting Halligan who turned out to be a fraud who allegedly swindled the Madeleine Fund out of a cool half milllion, money that the McCanns have never tried to recover. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Metropolitan Police will be aware of this.

Following the said review, Operation Grange then turned into an investigative force to apparently uncover vital evidence missed or ignored by the PJ. So far it would appear nothing has been found that can move towards a satisfactory conclusion. As the months and years have passed, so the government grant has increased, now well in excess of 12 million. The increase in funding is on a par with the increase of interest in the case - public interest, who are not prepared to sit back and allow the sad case of a missing three year old child to be buried without putting up a fight.

The PJ files were made public knowledge. There is no way the McCanns could have anticipated this - nor even the UK establishment. People who were already suspicious about the media reports of this tragic case, welcomed the publication of the PJ files - the files that provided a truthful account of the Portuguese investigation as opposed to the UK media version (all of which, if I might surmise, emanated from team McCann in the first place). Now the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and the facade must continue - the good people are not going to let this drop.

Too late to skulk into the shadows, this will never ever go away.

by Verdi 28.02.17 23:30

For information..

A guide to British nationals abroad - issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

What kind of help we can provide

We offer help which is appropriate to the individual circumstances of each case.

Our staff overseas will make an assessment of your vulnerability and the needs you have, based on who you are, where you are, and the situation you are facing. They will aim to offer assistance which helps meet these needs.
The help we offer can include:

> Issuing replacement emergency travel documents.

> Providing information about transferring funds.

> Providing appropriate help if you have suffered rape and sexual or physical assault, are a victim of other crimes, are ill or in hospital.

>Providing details of local lawyers, interpreters, doctors and funeral directors.

> Providing details of other organisations that can provide specialist support where we are unable to.

> Contacting family or friends for you if you would like us to.

> Making special arrangements in cases of terrorism, civil unrest or natural disasters.

> Providing documentary services such as consular birth or death registration, help with marriage or civil partnership documents, or providing notarial services as appropriate.

We cannot:

> Help you enter a country, for example, if you do not have a visa or your passport is not valid because each country can decide who they allow into their country, and no country outside the EU has any obligation to explain their decisions to the British Government.

> Issue you with a new or replacement passport, or accept applications for these because passports are issued by Her Majesty’s Passport Office in the UK.

> Ensure your safety and security in another country because this is the responsibility of the government and authorities of that country.

> Give you legal advice or translate formal documents because such support is best provided by independent professionals and we do not have the funding or the expertise to provide such specialist services.

> Carry out searches for missing people because doing so is the responsibility of the local authorities and to search effectively requires resources that only local authorities can provide.

> Investigate crimes, get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings because we cannot interfere in another country’s processes and must respect their systems, just as we expect them to respect the UK’s laws and legal processes.

> Get you better treatment in prison than local prisoners (although we may raise concerns with local authorities if treatment falls below internationally recognised standards) or get you better treatment in hospital than the treatment that is given to local people because we cannot interfere in another country’s processes just as we would not accept such interference in the UK.

> Pay any bills or give you money from public funds because we are not funded to do this and it is the obligation of individuals to take responsibility for themselves. It would also be unfair for those who take out insurance to subsidise those who do not, and you would not normally get these bills paid if you were in the UK.

> Make travel arrangements for you, or find you work or accommodation, or make business arrangements on your behalf because these are private arrangements which are your responsibility to make for yourself.

> Get involved (including offering advice) in private disputes over property, employment, commercial or other matters because we are in no position to judge the facts and have no jurisdiction overseas to resolve such matters.

by suzyjohnson 28.02.17 23:32

Having reviewed the MM case, Scotland Yard, with all their experience, probably had a very good idea what the cost of an investigation was going to be.

The PJ files were already on the internet, Amaral's book was already published and there was already considerable interest in the case before Scotland Yard took any of this on. If they have been swayed at all in their objective by events, it won't have been any of the above.

by sandancer 28.02.17 23:38

Sadly many are still unaware that the files are available online for everyone to read .

Many still continue to focus on the Neglect angle .

This CANNOT be allowed to go away !

For Madeleine's sake and for her brother and sister .

by suzyjohnson 28.02.17 23:42

Verdi wrote:
A guide to British nationals abroad - issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

What kind of help we can provide

------------------------------------------

We cannot:

>
> Ensure your safety and security in another country because this is the responsibility of the government and authorities of that country.

> Give you legal advice or translate formal documents because such support is best provided by independent professionals and we do not have the funding or the expertise to provide such specialist services.

> Carry out searches for missing people because doing so is the responsibility of the local authorities and to search effectively requires resources that only local authorities can provide.

> Investigate crimes, get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities from deporting you after your prison sentence, or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings because we cannot interfere in another country’s processes and must respect their systems, just as we expect them to respect the UK’s laws and legal processes.

> Get you better treatment in prison than local prisoners (although we may raise concerns with local authorities if treatment falls below internationally recognised standards) or get you better treatment in hospital than the treatment that is given to local people because we cannot interfere in another country’s processes just as we would not accept such interference in the UK.

>

No, initially they cannot help with the above. But in both the McCann case and the Needham case, police assistance and private detectives played a role later on, after the case was archived in the case of Portugal, and several years later in the case of Greece.

by Verdi 28.02.17 23:47

,

suzyjohnson wrote:Having reviewed the MM case, Scotland Yard, with all their experience, probably had a very good idea what the cost of an investigation was going to be.

The PJ files were already on the internet, Amaral's book was already published and there was already considerable interest in the case before Scotland Yard took any of this on. If they have been swayed at all in their objective by events, it won't have been any of the above.

That is not how Operation Grange proceeded. The global cost to the UK public purse included the intital review by Operation Grange - Operation Grange did not make the decision to move on to an investigation, it was the governments decision. Clearly they had no idea how much the review/investigation would cost. They, Operation Grange, were granted a specific initial sum which has been supplemented by additional grants in subsequent years. Dribs and drabs so to speak. Had Operation Grange, or even the government, any inclination of estimated costs, they would have budgeted accordingly - not made a decision based on nothing from one year to the next.

It's impossible to anticipate the overall cost of a criminal investigation for the simple reason there is no way of knowing what resources will be required nor how long an investigation will take. It is progressive - could be solved tomorrow or in ten years.

Operation Grange is a facade, a pretence - time will tell.

NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why?

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Re: NEW - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Log in for more topics