Re: Gerry to speak at CEOP Conference in Jan

by Autumn 30.12.09 14:42

Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info http://www.ceop.gov.uk/training/conferences/takenconference.asp

I think this bit
14.45 Insight from the minds of child abductors: Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill, Dr Joe Sullivan, Consultant Chartered Psychologist, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
will be very interesting. How an offender thinks and the risks they are willing to take to get their pray gives the police ideas and tools with which to catch similar freaks further down the line

That will be the point at which Gerry breaks out in a cold sweat and makes a swift exit to the bar laugh

by baconbutty 30.12.09 14:49

That's what got him into trouble in the first place! laugh

by vaguely 30.12.09 15:06

Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:
Autumn wrote:
Raffle wrote:Is he going to be there with representatives of the CEOP?

Jim Gamble will be making the welcome speech.

Here is a link for more info http://www.ceop.gov.uk/training/conferences/takenconference.asp

I think this bit
14.45 Insight from the minds of child abductors: Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill, Dr Joe Sullivan, Consultant Chartered Psychologist, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
will be very interesting. How an offender thinks and the risks they are willing to take to get their pray gives the police ideas and tools with which to catch similar freaks further down the line

That will be the point at which Gerry breaks out in a cold sweat and makes a swift exit to the bar

yep, hilarious. Child disappearances always suit a laughing smiley don't they.

Anyway, no matter what You or I think of Gerry McCann, the point is he hasn't disappeared has he, not for two and a half years. He's been there, and attended these things - with a missing child, he's done that. He is the father of a missing child.

by Ruby 01.01.10 15:40

Picture the scene.

Experts have spoken about faked abductions.

The audience is entranced.

Gerry steps up in his brown trouser suit and blathers on a bit, saying nothing new.

The facilitator asks 'any questions?'

Every audience member's hand shoots up.

thinking

Wonder if i could put £195 through as expenses lol!

by MaryB 01.01.10 16:26

I'd like to ask the experts what are the indications of a fake abduction. But shame I'm not invited.

by Guest 01.01.10 17:34

MaryB wrote:I'd like to ask the experts what are the indications of a fake abduction. But shame I'm not invited.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in forums who think they are now experts on the indications of faked abductions. They have almost solved the case from the comfort of their chairs, without looking at the REAL evidence, or attending interviews/interogations. Why they haven't gone professional is beyond me thinking

by preciousramotswe 02.01.10 14:07

I'll admit it.

I am seriously worried about how many of the semi-professional McCann-haters are now rubishing CEOP.

Any forum you go to (Bren's skeleton cupboard, Morais, MM etc)) has the likes of Ironside crawling all over it, posting up stories about why Gamble is a dangerous creep and CEOP are probably just a front for paedophiles.

I find this kind of crap very worrying. It shows that from hating the parents of a missing child one can get drawn into a web of conspiraloon blatherings which ends up questioning one of the groups of people actually trying to protect kids from predators. In fact not just questioning, but actively trying to dig up dirt on them and even rubbishing the whole idea of investigating those found downloading child porn.

And I ask myself who benefits from that, and what their agenda is.

by preciousramotswe 02.01.10 14:13

Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:
tyra wrote:
Autumn wrote:'the abductor who they believe snatched her' :ambersuz: :ambersuz: :ambersuz:

Oh please, Trya, change the record.

That's what they assert, I can't change the record on the facts, they say they believe an abductor took their child, nothing you or I can say that will make that statement any less true.

I dont think you believe in their abduction claims anymore than I do

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

According to the evidence in the police files, abduction would appear to be highly improbable. If, however, you have formed your opinion on what has been fed to the UK press I can well understand you going with the abduction theory.

Hardly! the gutter press went with parental involvement of a probably dead Madeleine hence the libel case. Do keep up.

In fact I am almost solely led by the police investigation, which if you had bothered to read it, certainly does not rule out abduction, in fact almost entirely rules out parentsl involvement but I guess you'd rather not bother yourself with such annoying facts, not when it is apparently much more satisfying to repeat long disproved myths and rumours instead day after day after long day. You may have some memory issue that stops you from maintaining facts and figures in your brain for longer then two hours, please be aware the rest of us do not.

Takes all sorts I suppose, but when it comes to the law, justice and the life of an innocent child I'd put the facts ahead of my own personal "fun", in fact I am pretty insulted that someone purporting to debate the case hasn't even got a basic grasp of the findings.

Whats up. Trya, did the McCanns leave you off their Christmas card list again? Keep posting your sychophantic McCann fanmail drivel - better luck next time

Well known fact that when you resort to making abusive posts, as you so often do, you have lost the argument. Any more posts like this, and I will report you.

If you do report her then you will be completely and utterly out of order.

It's you that ends up trying to rattle people by changing and twisting their posting names, it's you that resorts to insults every time you have your preconceptions challenged because your debating skills are just not up to dealing with it.

And that my dear is a fact.

Neither have you read the files anywhere near as well as you should have done for someone so sure the parents are guilty, but then this is a common and exasperating facet of the anti mindset.

Thery claim to be led only by the facts but they are actually woefully ignorant of them.

Now try debating the actual points made for once instead of huffing and puffing and posting up emoticons, it's transparent and frankly embarrassing.

by Guest 02.01.10 14:56

badmanners wrote:I'll admit it.

I am seriously worried about how many of the semi-professional McCann-haters are now rubishing CEOP.

Any forum you go to (Bren's skeleton cupboard, Morais, MM etc)) has the likes of Ironside crawling all over it, posting up stories about why Gamble is a dangerous creep and CEOP are probably just a front for paedophiles.

I find this kind of crap very worrying. It shows that from hating the parents of a missing child one can get drawn into a web of conspiraloon blatherings which ends up questioning one of the groups of people actually trying to protect kids from predators. In fact not just questioning, but actively trying to dig up dirt on them and even rubbishing the whole idea of investigating those found downloading child porn.

And I ask myself who benefits from that, and what their agenda is.

Two very important questions imo.

by Avery 02.01.10 15:36

I agree, we should not attack Jim Gamble and his group. It is quite possible he has his own reasons for inviting Gerry, if only to watch him squirm. The more public questioning of the couple the more exposure and pressure. They have hid behind Clarence and have avoided public scrutiny so exposure is a good thing.

by vaguely 02.01.10 16:30

Avery wrote:I agree, we should not attack Jim Gamble and his group. It is quite possible he has his own reasons for inviting Gerry, if only to watch him squirm. The more public questioning of the couple the more exposure and pressure. They have hid behind Clarence and have avoided public scrutiny so exposure is a good thing.

You think it's a trap? Rather than just asking possibly the most prominent missing child in recent times parents to talk?

by Old Nick 02.01.10 16:40

Of course it's a trap. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey....

by littlepixie 02.01.10 16:40

Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

by vaguely 02.01.10 16:45

littlepixie wrote:Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

the disappearance might not, but the internet was used both by them and against them in a pretty ground breaking way post disappearance. I guess it's a case of publicity on both sides.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 16:02

littlepixie wrote:Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

So that attendees can pose GM questions like :

Refering to the earlier 2 speakers speech on 'faked abduction' what is your view on that?

Why do you think you are especially included in this meeting when there are plenty other missing children?

by Autumn 04.01.10 1:14

aiyoyo wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

So that attendees can pose GM questions like :

Refering to the earlier 2 speakers speech on 'faked abduction' what is your view on that?

Why do you think you are especially included in this meeting when there are plenty other missing children?

I think that Gerry probably agreed to speak at this meeting without realizing that, amongst the topics to be discussed, would be 'Faked Abduction'. Dont be too surprised if Gerry finds a way of worming out of attending.

by aliberte2 04.01.10 1:37

Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

So that attendees can pose GM questions like :

Refering to the earlier 2 speakers speech on 'faked abduction' what is your view on that?

Why do you think you are especially included in this meeting when there are plenty other missing children?

I think that Gerry probably agreed to speak at this meeting without realizing that, amongst the topics to be discussed, would be 'Faked Abduction'. Dont be too surprised if Gerry finds a way of worming out of attending.

I Don't Think He Has Anything to Worry About as the Portuguese Investigation was Seriously Botched and Every Legitimate Profiler and Expert Agrees Madeleine was Abducted.

by Guest 04.01.10 1:42

aliberte2 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Maddies disappearance had nothing to do with the internet so why is Gerry at the meeting anyway.

So that attendees can pose GM questions like :

Refering to the earlier 2 speakers speech on 'faked abduction' what is your view on that?

Why do you think you are especially included in this meeting when there are plenty other missing children?

I think that Gerry probably agreed to speak at this meeting without realizing that, amongst the topics to be discussed, would be 'Faked Abduction'. Dont be too surprised if Gerry finds a way of worming out of attending.

I Don't Think He Has Anything to Worry About as the Portuguese Investigation was Seriously Botched and Every Legitimate Profiler and Expert Agrees Madeleine was Abducted.

Not to mention every PROFESSIONAL who has seen ALL the case notes.

If the armchair sleuths are so good at what they do, why don't they turn professional? thinking

by diatribe 15.02.14 12:23

Guest wrote:

On the contrary, I believe what the evidence suggests and the evidence is not swayed by hate or by what people want to believe or what makes them sleep better at night, it is what it is and it suggests abduction to be the most likely event that took place that night.

Can you point to one fact that suggests an abduction was the most likely event that took place that night. I'd have thought that all the evidence points in a diametrically opposed direction beginning with a lack of motive and ending with an even greater lack of opportunity. The lies of the McCanns and their friends, not to mention their extremely suspicious behaviour merely adds to the ingredients of being anything but an abduction. Incidentally, I don't include in the aforementioned, Kate MacCanns reluctance to answer police questions under caution as I consider that to be her right as an accused person.

In my considered opinion, an abduction hypothesis is all but a physical impossibility, although I am an open minded person and as previously stated, await for you to point me in the direction of one scintilla of evidence that remotely suggests an abduction is the most likely reason for the disappearance of the McCann's daughter, Madeleine.

by Guest 15.02.14 12:32

Diatribe, that comment is from December 2009 when the forum was awash with trolls.

Whoever posted that has long gone.

by diatribe 15.02.14 12:34

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Diatribe, that comment is from December 2009 when the forum was awash with trolls.

Whoever posted that has long gone.

Well, I won't wait with bated breath for a reply then and allow him to continue unimpeded in his quest to become the next honourable member to represent Brighton Pavilion. big grin

by jeanmonroe 15.02.14 13:51

Gerry did a 'runner' before the American guys 'talked' about FAKED 'abductions'

by diatribe 15.02.14 14:05

jeanmonroe wrote:Gerry did a 'runner' before the American guys 'talked' about FAKED 'abductions'

I guessed as much and you'll have to excuse my unfamiliarity with all the facts concerning this case as I only began taking an interest after inadvertently stumbling across a couple of videos on Youtube relating to the McCanns during the course of last yr.

I'm one of those rare breed of people who neither reads newspapers or watches news bulletins and as a consequence, don't normally involve myself with matters that I have no control over. big grin

Log in for more topics