Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: British Police / Government Interference :: Smithman: Crimewatch Reconstruction and the appeal for new info / suspects
Page 1 of 8 • Share
Page 1 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
These are interesting tweets from Jon Tait.
Jon Tait [ltr]@jontaito[/ltr]23m
3/4#mccann pic.twitter.com/gRaYQTOkBK
Expand
[/font][/color] Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More
[color][font]
Jon Tait [ltr]@jontaito[/ltr]23m
2/4#mccann pic.twitter.com/Vpqco5iCLT
Expand
[/font][/color] Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More
Jon Tait [ltr]@jontaito[/ltr]24m
Interesting email exchange with OFM webmaster, backs up what@trulyjudy73 said last week. #mccann 1/4 pic.twitter.com/T84gjwesrO
One will have to read the tweets for themselves, as I don't know how to copy and paste the full text.
Here is the link:
https://twitter.com/jontaito
- [ltr]jontaito[/ltr]23m
4/4#mccann pic.twitter.com/Y55KDIiSNF
Expand - Reply
- Retweet
- Favorite
- More
3/4
Expand
[/font][/color]
2/4
Expand
[/font][/color]
Jon Tait [ltr]
Interesting email exchange with OFM webmaster, backs up what
One will have to read the tweets for themselves, as I don't know how to copy and paste the full text.
Here is the link:
https://twitter.com/jontaito
- Reply
- Retweet
sallypelt- Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
Join date : 2012-11-10
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Thanks sallypelt and well done for asking Jon Tait. Wonder WHO told that person 'NOT' to remove tanner man from the site?
margaret- Posts : 585
Activity : 597
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
They probably trying to draw attention away from the "GM" e-fit to the non existent "Tannerman ".
NickE- Posts : 1404
Activity : 2151
Likes received : 499
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 49
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.
no longer looking for him.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Twitter is abuzz with predictions of impending doom for dvTM which seems to be heading for the rocks.
O to be a fly on the wall in Rothley Towers...
Blacksmith has been channelling Peter Cook http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/notebook.html?m=1 and I'm channelling Mel & Griff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psqQR_AnGJM
O to be a fly on the wall in Rothley Towers...
Blacksmith has been channelling Peter Cook http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/notebook.html?m=1 and I'm channelling Mel & Griff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psqQR_AnGJM
ultimaThule- Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
You could say that the McCanns have banked everything on Tannerman being the abductor. Right from the start, he was the one displayed in the press / PR conferences / website / media. Gerry even remembers feeling that Tannerman was hiding in the apartment with him. Jane was distraught at having seen the abductor with Maddie. It happened at a time when Gerry was chatting with Jez, and Kate was at the bar.margaret wrote:Thanks sallypelt and well done for asking Jon Tait. Wonder WHO told that person 'NOT' to remove tanner man from the site?
If Tannerman is not the abductor - and the abduction took place much later, then nobody has an alibi (and Gerry now becomes the last person to see Maddie alive). This is not part of the script which up till now had a very simple narrative. No, without Tannerman we are in uncharted and uncertain waters. The natural reaction from TM would be to hunker down and stick to the original story. Stick hard until you cannot any longer.
And for now - we just have Redwood's statement on Crimewatch - a statement which may well have caught the McCanns completely by surprise. They knew about the efits - but did they know that Tannerman was to be removed on-air from the story? I suspect not.
They (like us) may wonder if "crecheman" really does exist. Perhaps they hope he doesn't. So for now - keep a hold of Tannerman, and tell the webmaster (an employee and possibly a relative) to leave the site unchanged. Makes sense to me.
Bishop Brennan- Posts : 695
Activity : 920
Likes received : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
It does open a can of worms, doesn't it? I woke this morning to a VERY angry email from the webmaster, berating me for posting our correspondence online.
Jontait- Posts : 19
Activity : 21
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Welcome aboard JonJontait wrote:It does open a can of worms, doesn't it? I woke this morning to a VERY angry email from the webmaster, berating me for posting our correspondence online.
D'you fancy posting that email too? My, they do get their knickers in a twist with all their anomalies don't they? How they do hate questions!
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
I'd love to know who the webmaster actually is....are we really in the presence of McCann royalty?
Guest- Guest
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Jontait
A big welcome from me to the forum.
I wonder why they are so coy about information regarding the site - they seem to be keen to advertise in other areas.
A big welcome from me to the forum.
I wonder why they are so coy about information regarding the site - they seem to be keen to advertise in other areas.
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
If the mccanns have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear,post the reply you got from the webmaster just to let them know you don't like cover ups,Jontait wrote:It does open a can of worms, doesn't it? I woke this morning to a VERY angry email from the webmaster, berating me for posting our correspondence online.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Not sure how to post pic from iPhone. Here is the text:
Wish I hadn't responded to you. How dare you post my Emails without my permission. I responded to your questions in good faith and you in turn posted my replies on that horrible Controversy page.
If you have any other questions, go to the Grange team. I will not respond to you further!
Wish I hadn't responded to you. How dare you post my Emails without my permission. I responded to your questions in good faith and you in turn posted my replies on that horrible Controversy page.
If you have any other questions, go to the Grange team. I will not respond to you further!
Jontait- Posts : 19
Activity : 21
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
To which I replied:
Yes. Sorry about that.
I think it's important to get the truth out there.
None of your personal details have been compromised.
You were only following orders. People can now discuss WHOSE orders you were following.
I have emailed Operation Grange with my concerns.
All the best, and sorry once again for misleading you.
Jon
Ps I hope you are able to resolve your migratory issues with Google Checkout. I have been assured the switchover should only take 1 hour, not 15 (and counting) days. Plus the 6 months notice you were given should've provided ample time to switch.
Just a thought. Bye now!
Yes. Sorry about that.
I think it's important to get the truth out there.
None of your personal details have been compromised.
You were only following orders. People can now discuss WHOSE orders you were following.
I have emailed Operation Grange with my concerns.
All the best, and sorry once again for misleading you.
Jon
Ps I hope you are able to resolve your migratory issues with Google Checkout. I have been assured the switchover should only take 1 hour, not 15 (and counting) days. Plus the 6 months notice you were given should've provided ample time to switch.
Just a thought. Bye now!
Jontait- Posts : 19
Activity : 21
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Thanks Jon.
It would seem that even thought your correspondence was not controversial, anything that people actually wish to ask rather than wait to be told, seems to provoke anger. Now, if everything was just so "normal" why would a question be so threatening to Team McCann?
They really have got to get the message that THEY want public support, but only if no-one questions anything, and that is simply hypocritical and one sided.
Have they really no understanding that it is their own behaviour and stance that creates doubt?
After six and a half years, it seems they really are too dim to get the message.
It would seem that even thought your correspondence was not controversial, anything that people actually wish to ask rather than wait to be told, seems to provoke anger. Now, if everything was just so "normal" why would a question be so threatening to Team McCann?
They really have got to get the message that THEY want public support, but only if no-one questions anything, and that is simply hypocritical and one sided.
Have they really no understanding that it is their own behaviour and stance that creates doubt?
After six and a half years, it seems they really are too dim to get the message.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
It seems to have been taken very personally by the webmaster/mistress, whoever they might be !
sami- Posts : 965
Activity : 1019
Likes received : 54
Join date : 2012-04-08
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Is there a way to find out who the webmaster is ?
chillyheat- Posts : 814
Activity : 884
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Shows they are desperate to STILL have Tannerman and Smithman as one......The Smith sighting shown here. They show the child being carried the same way as Tannerman, when clearly the Smiths said the child was being carried over the shoulder.
chillyheat- Posts : 814
Activity : 884
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
What an oddly emotional response from a webmaster. And so early on a Sunday morning too.Jontait wrote:Not sure how to post pic from iPhone. Here is the text:
Wish I hadn't responded to you. How dare you post my Emails without my permission. I responded to your questions in good faith and you in turn posted my replies on that horrible Controversy page.
If you have any other questions, go to the Grange team. I will not respond to you further!
Webmasters conjure up James Bond figures for me, sequestered away, pressing buttons. Just the mechanics of the show really.
I noticed it wasn't the Metropolitan Police or Operation Grange, but the equivalent of a Christian name diminutive 'Grange' to whom you were directed. Almost affectionate I thought.
Did they supply a hotline through?
Questions questions. The everyday stuff of management. All in all, not an issue for a master to get his web in a tangle about.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
They did supply tel no & email yesterday. I opted to email so as to keep the phonelines free for any important calls! I await a reply from Op Grange
Jontait- Posts : 19
Activity : 21
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-12-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Shall we curtsey? I reckon it's Mr Greenink whose monitoring is ultra vigilant these days - the wagons have been circled and he's been tasked with looking out for the first sign of a fleet of black marias coming over them thar hills surrounding Rothley Towers.No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'd love to know who the webmaster actually is....are we really in the presence of McCann royalty?
Jontait - and way to go!
TrulyAwful was up twittering at the crack of dawn this morning. That's 3 days running her knickers have worked their way up to her neck but, sadly, not yet around it.
ultimaThule- Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Well done. And thank you too.Jontait wrote:They did supply tel no & email yesterday. I opted to email so as to keep the phonelines free for any important calls! I await a reply from Op Grange
You mustn't put yourself down though, Jontait! Yours could be the call that supplies that missing piece of the jigsaw TM have been
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Awwww get them all high and mighty.Jontait wrote:Not sure how to post pic from iPhone. Here is the text:
Wish I hadn't responded to you. How dare you post my Emails without my permission. I responded to your questions in good faith and you in turn posted my replies on that horrible Controversy page.
If you have any other questions, go to the Grange team. I will not respond to you further!
Was this the same people that blacksmith posted about earlier in the year? The webmaster was going to clarify something with 'Kate' then denied doing so once blacksmith had shown up their lies.
Well done Jon and welcome.
margaret- Posts : 585
Activity : 597
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
I posted this December 3rd 2013.
WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF SOMEBODY GETS 'ATTACKED'?
McCANNS OR SY/MET POLICE?
WHY are the Met/SY still allowing the McCanns to portray 'Creche/Tannerman' on their website after they, SY/Met have publicly DISMISSED him as of importance?
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
FIFTY (50) days after DCI Andy Redwood 'eliminated' 'him' as relevent to investigation!
What IF 'somebody saw somebody' dressed in similar clothing, as Creche/Tannerman, in the street, today . tomorrow, next week and 'attacked/tried to arrest' him as the possible 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann?
Are SY/Met/ DCI Redwood going to take responsibility for that assault, they could have obviously 'prevented' by instructing the McCanns to STOP 'promoting' a 'suspect' they have dismissed?
Or is it the case, that SY/Met were TOLD, of a 'possible assault' (worse case scenario, death, like the recent case in Bristol)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280
but, ignored the warning, and will 'apologise' AFTER an 'event' with 'we were told this might be a possibility due to our decision to leave a false suspect on our clients website.We'll refer ourselves to the IPCC and lessons will be learn't'
WHY are SY/Met allowing the McCanns to 'display' a 'suspect' and possibly put at risk an 'innocent' man, Christmas shopping with his young, blonde daughter, DCI Redwood has dismissed publicly?
METROPOLITAN POLICE, DCI REDWOOD, AS OF TODAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2013..........................................YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!
WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF SOMEBODY GETS 'ATTACKED'?
McCANNS OR SY/MET POLICE?
WHY are the Met/SY still allowing the McCanns to portray 'Creche/Tannerman' on their website after they, SY/Met have publicly DISMISSED him as of importance?
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
FIFTY (50) days after DCI Andy Redwood 'eliminated' 'him' as relevent to investigation!
What IF 'somebody saw somebody' dressed in similar clothing, as Creche/Tannerman, in the street, today . tomorrow, next week and 'attacked/tried to arrest' him as the possible 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann?
Are SY/Met/ DCI Redwood going to take responsibility for that assault, they could have obviously 'prevented' by instructing the McCanns to STOP 'promoting' a 'suspect' they have dismissed?
Or is it the case, that SY/Met were TOLD, of a 'possible assault' (worse case scenario, death, like the recent case in Bristol)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280
but, ignored the warning, and will 'apologise' AFTER an 'event' with 'we were told this might be a possibility due to our decision to leave a false suspect on our clients website.We'll refer ourselves to the IPCC and lessons will be learn't'
WHY are SY/Met allowing the McCanns to 'display' a 'suspect' and possibly put at risk an 'innocent' man, Christmas shopping with his young, blonde daughter, DCI Redwood has dismissed publicly?
METROPOLITAN POLICE, DCI REDWOOD, AS OF TODAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2013..........................................YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
Yes, it could lead to a serious assault IMO, jeanmonroe. This is too high profile a case for it not to be a real possibility.jeanmonroe wrote:I posted this December 3rd 2013.
WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF SOMEBODY GETS 'ATTACKED'?
McCANNS OR SY/MET POLICE?
WHY are the Met/SY still allowing the McCanns to portray 'Creche/Tannerman' on their website after they, SY/Met have publicly DISMISSED him as of importance?
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
FIFTY (50) days after DCI Andy Redwood 'eliminated' 'him' as relevent to investigation!
What IF 'somebody saw somebody' dressed in similar clothing, as Creche/Tannerman, in the street, today . tomorrow, next week and 'attacked/tried to arrest' him as the possible 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann?
Are SY/Met/ DCI Redwood going to take responsibility for that assault, they could have obviously 'prevented' by instructing the McCanns to STOP 'promoting' a 'suspect' they have dismissed?
Or is it the case, that SY/Met were TOLD, of a 'possible assault' (worse case scenario, death, like the recent case in Bristol)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280
but, ignored the warning, and will 'apologise' AFTER an 'event' with 'we were told this might be a possibility due to our decision to leave a false suspect on our clients website.We'll refer ourselves to the IPCC and lessons will be learn't'
WHY are SY/Met allowing the McCanns to 'display' a 'suspect' and possibly put at risk an 'innocent' man, Christmas shopping with his young, blonde daughter, DCI Redwood has dismissed publicly?
METROPOLITAN POLICE, DCI REDWOOD, AS OF TODAY, 3RD DECEMBER 2013..........................................YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD!
This, along with the muddle being created in the search for MM by her family's own dedicated website, makes it imperative that someone sorts this out immediately.
I've never heard of a precedent for such flagrant thumbing at a MET investigation - and flaunted in everyone's faces too. As a taxpayer, I want to know why it is being tolerated.
Remind me, what is the cost of this mammoth investigation (inc CW) to date?
Over to you Grange.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman
I think it's an apprentice webmaster who hasn't quite mastered the online store (donations) or linking (book linking to poster page) as yet.ChillyHeat wrote:Is there a way to find out who the webmaster is ?
____________________
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
oakeso- Posts : 62
Activity : 65
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The cellar - looking for NZ labels
Page 1 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics
» MADDIE COPS PRIME SUSPECT BLUNDER- tomorrows MIRROR 28/12/13
» Madeleine McCann's parents seek phone hacking probe role
» Maybe Tannerman was there after all?
» Can Tannerman sue ?
» Tanner created a difficult Spanner.....
» Madeleine McCann's parents seek phone hacking probe role
» Maybe Tannerman was there after all?
» Can Tannerman sue ?
» Tanner created a difficult Spanner.....
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: British Police / Government Interference :: Smithman: Crimewatch Reconstruction and the appeal for new info / suspects
Page 1 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum