Just posted this on profencianti ...

by honestbroker Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:37 am

And I know that the good folks of the 3As avidly read here, too, I reckon it should go here:

Organised & International Crime Directorate
5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard xxx Fax xxx Direct Line xxx E-mail xxx
####//############

<BLOCKQUOTE class=uncited>

Ms xxx Our ref: xxx
xxx@xxx
Date:28th January 2009
Dear Ms xxx
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
HOME OFFICE MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE MCCANN

I am writing further to my correspondence on the 16th December 2008. We are now in a
position to offer a full reply to your request. I would like to apologise for the length of time it
has taken to respond to your request. This delay has been due to giving full and due
consideration to the public interest test together with the necessity to consult with other
agencies.

It is noted that your request was to essentially seek information for any record or document
or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that neither of the parents of Madeleine Beth
McCann possessed any credit card or debit card from any financial institution during the
period 25th April 2007 and 12th September 2007. You additionally requested any record or document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that the alleged affirmation was made by any official of the Home Office to any police officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary and failing the existence of any written record whether such affirmation was made verbally the name of the official(s) and the recipient officer(s). The request was also seeking information of any record or document or extract reporting or evidencing the credit card or debit transactions made by the parents of Madeleine Beth McCann between the 4th May 2007 and 21st July 2008.

Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your
request.

Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first of these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested is actually held by that authority. The second duty is for that information to be disclosed where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under s1(1)(b).

The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your
request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the
Act:

* Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations;
* Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law Enforcement activities; and
* Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety.

This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Home Office will not comment on any of the information contained in
Goncal Amaral’s book, ‘A Verdade da Mentira’ as it would potentially undermine ongoing
investigations.

There are a number of sensitivities relevant to your request, given that Madeleine McCann is still missing and the investigation is still ongoing. Confirming or denying whether any
information is held could undermine the investigation, prejudice international relations and
could endanger the health and safety of members of the public.

We have considered public interest considerations in making our decision and we have
attached these to this letter. We believe that, at this time, the public interest strongly favours neither confirming nor denying that the information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.

This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you
have requested either does or does not exist. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two months to the below address quoting reference xxx

Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Or email: xxx

During the independent review the department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed by an official that was not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However we have considered your request with great care, and the Home Office always seeks to provide as much information as it is able to.

Thank you for your interest in the Home Office.
Yours sincerely
xxx
Team Leader
UK Central Authority

Public Interest Considerations

s.17 – Refusal of request

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent
relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is
relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must,
within the time for complying with section1(1), give the applicant a notice which -

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

s.27 – International Relations

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice,

(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other state,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or
international court

(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) –
(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)

s.31 – Law Enforcement
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt
information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,

(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)

s.38 – Health & Safety

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to-

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)

Harm and prejudice

The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still ongoing. There are
significant unknowns in relation to her disappearance. Leicestershire Constabulary are the
lead force in the UK dealing with this investigation but the principle investigation agency is
Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal. We believe that significant harm to the investigation could
result from either confirming or denying that we hold the information you have asked for.

Should this investigation lead to a prosecution, saying whether or not this information is or is
not held by the Home Office would risk undermining the human rights of any suspect to a fair
trial and the rights of a victim, particularly if the prosecution would fail due to such an
announcement.

If the Home Office was to either confirm or deny that it did or did not hold any information that
was gathered in the course of this investigation, it might risk compromising the conduct of
this investigation. This could ultimately prejudice the administration of justice. In any event,
to confirm or deny that any such information that was or was not obtained in the course of a
criminal investigation, either voluntarily or through compulsory powers, ought not to be
generally disclosed, save as far as it is necessary for the purposes of establishing or
defending rights in litigation.

There is consequently a strong public interest in ensuring that evidence is not contaminated
for any future trial. In addition there is a strong public interest to preserve relations with the
Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal whilst Madeleine remains missing.

Two of the Home Office’s objectives are to support the efficient and effective delivery of
justice, and to lead visible, responsive and accountable policing. The manner in which the
Home Office works to support the Police Service as a whole is one of our core business
functions.

If the Home Office prejudiced such a high-profile and sensitive investigation by confirming or
denying that we either do or do not hold any of the information that you have requested, we
would be seen as working against the efforts of both UK and Portuguese policing authorities,
undermining their determined efforts to locate Madeline McCann and her assailants. This
would not be in the best interests of the public..

Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety,
of Madeline McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found.
There is no actual public interest served in releasing information that may jeopardise the
health & safety of any individual.

There is a strong public interest in the UK maintaining the arrangements it currently enjoys
with other States in matters of judicial and mutual legal cooperation in criminal and other
matters. Any act that would prejudice this investigation may discourage other States with
complying with reasonable requests issued by the UK or from pursuing legitimate
investigations in the UK for fear that the product of such requests or investigations may be
disclosed to private citizens

What to say? Let's assume for a moment, as this email directly states, that there is, still, a joint, on-going investigation in Britain and Portugal into the disappearance of Madeleine. If that were the case, it would be a covert operation, since all the public announcements are that the case has been shelved. So given that, are we seriously to believe that the Home Office would send an email to a private individual declaring the opposite of the official line and blowing the gaffe on a 'covert' operation? No!

And in what sense could it be deemed in the public interest to reveal the private credit or debit card transactions of a citizen not found to have been guilty of any wrong-doing? I would suggest, none.

Erm, category, a 3As hoax, I would suggest!
</BLOCKQUOTE>

by Guest Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:59 am

Oh gawd, I can see it now. Viv will be on saying I told you so. The McCanns are under investigation!! her police friends were right.

by Guest Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:33 am

I think a lot of these posts are done for affect, certain posters on the 3as are convinced that Madeleines Parents actually read/post on that site. And believe they are putting the frighteners on this couple that any day they'll be arrested WTF

.
I dont believe for one second they would give the 3as the time of day.
Its like the tick tock mentality some posters have time is running out etc...
That so called correspondence stinks of BS, WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY REFER TO THE PJ?
And how would having someones credit details threaten international relationships Laffin

by vee8 Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:33 am

ModNrodder wrote:Oh gawd, I can see it now. Viv will be on saying I told you so. The McCanns are under investigation!! her police friends were right.

No, the DISAPEARANCE is still under investigation. They stated any disclosure could be harmful to her health, i.e.

Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety,
of Madeline McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found.

Hmmm, what are they saying? They think she may be alive? Or perhaps they KNOW she's still alive?

By the way, what was the original enquiry, something about credit cards? It was so wrapped up in legal gobbledy-gook I didn't quite get that part.

by vee8 Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:35 am

Y'know, the more I read that, and the more I think about it, the more I am sure the Home office knows more than they are letting on.

by Guest Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:41 am

It sure is another hoax. Below is the correct address....and the one used in reply to several email requests recorded online. The address shown by the hoaxer is just the address of the Information Rights Team.

Organised and International Crime Directorate
Room 647
Home Office
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London

by sadie Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:07 am

And so much for Freedom of Information!

by honestbroker Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:29 am

Mum21 wrote:It sure is another hoax. Below is the correct address....and the one used in reply to several email requests recorded online. The address shown by the hoaxer is just the address of the Information Rights Team.

Organised and International Crime Directorate
Room 647
Home Office
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London

Well done, Mum21.

Somewhere in that lot, I spotted a spelling mistake, too: principle when principal was meant. I except the Home Office does make spelling mistakes. But hey, you know ...

Some bright spark over on the 3As, though, has woken up to the fact that there are no arguidos and floated the suggestion that one of the McCanns' friends is being investigated ... .

by Pedro Silva Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:54 pm

As far as I know, there is no evidence of any death, so, without a corpse, I think we should and must continue to believe and hope she is still alive somewhere out there and can be found. And if the Home Office (let´s not make any kinds of speculation about it, we, in Portugal have a saying: "Não pôr a carroça à frente dos bois", "Do not put the wagon in front of the bulls", which means, let´s not make any kinds of speculation, let´s not celebrate before she´s at home, celebration yes, but only when she is in her parents warm arms, this is my point of view, every one has the right to disagree, but, under the circumstances, I think this is the right behaviour) and I quote: "Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety of Madeleine McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found", and I agree with Vee, and I quote: "Y´know, the more I read that, and the more I think about it, the more I am sure the Home Office knows more than they are letting on", and I quote again: "Hmmm, what are they saying? They think she may be alive? Or perhaps they KNOW she´s still alive? let´s hope they do KNOW something very positive, let´s hope that the couple´s private detectives KNOW something very positive which allow them to ASAP to find her, to recover her, in a way that she can live many more years in the company and warm support and help of her whole family, because, only with her family´s whole support, the support of the couple´s friends, and also with our support, she (hopefully found alive & well very soon) will put a stone on top of her trauma, because, even if she has suffered some kind of abuse (I´m not saying she had suffered it, remember Natasha Kampusch, who is about to get married(*) I´m not saying it is the same case) once she is found, there are ways to ease the pain, to minimize the trauma, with the help of specialists on that field, with the help and support of her whole, with the help and support of her parents / relatives friends, with our support and help, with her twins help, with the help of ALL those that REALLY, and I mean REALLY cares about her, about her parents / relatives, when I say really twice, I´m talking about we, ALL the family McCann supporters. This is my opinion. This is what I think.

by Marilyn Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:10 pm

I'm back again to the CCTV film in Belgium (and the photos in Morocco) and this is where I am stuck.
What if the Brit. police & interpol know that Madeleine is being held and by whom and what if an entirely different investigation is going on in the background. Now why would these people hold Madeleine & parade her in public ? as a bargaining chip perhaps .. we have her, she is alive, back off .. did the McCann's uncover more than we know about criminal & political organised groups, and are such powerful people involved in all of this, somewhere along the line ? Well yes, that's what I think. Can't prove anything but it is still what I think. And that's where I am right now. Stuck.

by vee8 Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:41 am

Marilyn Switzerland wrote:I'm back again to the CCTV film in Belgium (and the photos in Morocco) and this is where I am stuck.
What if the Brit. police & interpol know that Madeleine is being held and by whom and what if an entirely different investigation is going on in the background. Now why would these people hold Madeleine & parade her in public ? as a bargaining chip perhaps .. we have her, she is alive, back off .. did the McCann's uncover more than we know about criminal & political organised groups, and are such powerful people involved in all of this, somewhere along the line ? Well yes, that's what I think. Can't prove anything but it is still what I think. And that's where I am right now. Stuck.

A

A very big YES to all of the above. I have said, right from the start, this is no regular abduction, for the usual reasons. This is something much, much bigger. Very powerful organisations are at work, rivals, with conflicting interests with regards to Madeleine's wellbeing. Madeleine has an important part in all our futures, something that some are detemined to protect, and others are equally determined to prevent.

by RealRhodes Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:37 pm

vee8 wrote:Y'know, the more I read that, and the more I think about it, the more I am sure the Home office knows more than they are letting on.

funny you should say that...I reckon they know FAR more about the workings of the police force in Portugal than can be made public for the sake of international relations...not to mention the political element over there too......................................

by Rosie Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:58 am

Hmmm I do not go in for conspiracies, I cannot get my head around that someone would kidnap Madeleine for some kind of bargaining tool. And this is all to do with espionage etc., why Madeleine?
Madeleine is just an ordinary little girl, she was on holiday with her parents and something bad happened.
I do believe that the image of the little girl in Belgium and the Moroccan sighting, that this may be linked. I think for less sinister reasons.

Madeleine is alive, she was being cared for and the person that took her for a walk past the cameras, did so because she was trying to draw attention to the fact that Madeleine is alive and did it in a way that would not bring attention on herself.

1)..The bank guard who saw Madeleine, had no axe to grind and firmly believes little girl he saw is Madeleine.

2)..We never had it confirmed that the man who came forward was the father of the little girl in the videos.

3)..He could have been anyone saying this was his daughter.

I believe this was Madeleine and she has now been moved to another location, probably in another country.

The trouble is that if Madeleine is being held, the damage done will be immense, she will no doubt be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, making it highly unlikely that she will ask for help, when she is able to do so, in fact she may even think she is a different person altogether now and there is a strong possibility she will speak another language or have a pronounced foreign accent by now. I base this on Rui Pedro, who was identified on a video by his mother, he is now of an age where he could ask for help but so far hasn't, the poor lad has probably no idea who he really is. I just hope the same thing doesn't happen to Madeleine.

As for the Home Office email, this is a spoof and should be sent to them so they can deal with it.

by RealRhodes Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:38 am

I can't even begin to imagine the horror a parent would feel when they identify their child in a porn video like poor Rui Pedro. It would break most parents.

by Catkins Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:20 pm

RealRhodes wrote:I can't even begin to imagine the horror a parent would feel when they identify their child in a porn video like poor Rui Pedro. It would break most parents.

I agree....it would send a parent insane to see that.........poor poor family..Also agree that by now Rui would be so brainwashed he would not be aware of where he came from.......

by Pedro Silva Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:12 am

I agree with you my friend Catkins, that is really awful.

by Rosie Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:43 pm

ModNrodder wrote:Oh gawd, I can see it now. Viv will be on saying I told you so. The McCanns are under investigation!! her police friends were right.

Yep she has been in overdrive since early yesterday morning. Unable to contain herself she sent me a post on our blog, demanding that I should not find it funny. I think she was so enveloped in hatred that she became quite incoherent, she was obviously enjoying what 'her interpretation' of this letter meant.

Maybe I will start publishing her comments again, when she offers us the right of reply on her blog? I cannot get over the audacity of her, she honestly expects that her comments be published, while she sits behind closed doors making unsubstantiated comments about others and NOT allowing their right of reply.

She was so happy at the prospect that two innocent people being investigated, that her mind completely blanked out the most obvious reasons as to why this 'MAY' be the case or MAY NOT be the case.

I would be more surprised if this did not happen. There is a missing child, abducted from her bed, there may have been a paedophile ring involved, there may have been an attempt to contact the McCanns to extort money out of them 1)...From the actual abductors, or 2)...From people 'pretending' to be the abductors. (The latter actually being true in one case!)

Who would deal with both of these scenarios? SOCA and CEOPS.

So why, if this ever took place at all is Viv wetting her knickers about it?

Has it occurred to Viv that these people may have been bugging the McCanns phones because they were requested to do so by the McCanns themselves?

Has it occurred to Viv that even if this occurred without the McCanns knowledge that after 17 months of covert bugging operation and surveillance of their moves etc, using the most high spec technology and the use of top minds trained to carry this kind of surveillance out, 'NOTHING' has turned up? Hence why Kate and Gerry McCann are still free to go about their business and their business is, the continuing search for their daughter, the search that this couple have not let up, they are leaving 'No Stone Unturned' just like they promised.

Does Viv honestly believe that those carrying out this surveillance, would have just allowed this letter to be sent out, blowing their operation and their cover?

Oh for the love of God, when is this ridiculous woman going to stop this? Perhaps she should be more worried about undercover surveillance looking at her blog and her comments which are now all around the internet, because some of them are so libellous they appear to have crossed the realms into criminality, stalking and harassing.

by Sponsored content

Just posted this on profencianti ...

Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Hi Honestbroker

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Deja Vu

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...

Re: Just posted this on profencianti ...