To think the Met spending £5 million on Maddie McCann is unfair on others who have missing children

[Ilovemyself]

I know how retched I would feel if I were in the McCanns position, and would want no expense to be spared in the hunt for answers.

But I can't help but think that this case has been so high profile that other cases must have funding cut or not even be followed up as the budget is limited.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but it does seem this case has benefitted in ways others wouldn't.

I feel bad for thinking its unfair on others, but just can't help wondering how other victims of serious crime feel.

I agree janey those things were tabloid fodder and minimal compared to the huge support the couple had and still have.

What are you basing your theories on Janey? Newspaper reports? Have you constructed a timeline or something?

I find it really odd that so many people are so emotionally invested in this case when they don't seen to have given two hoots about April Jones' parents' failings.

As for MN being hugely protective of the McCanns, it has always seemed to me that one of the nastiest aspects about this site is this weird obsession with the McCanns and their inconsistent timelines.

Seriously - the Portuguese police and now the Met have investigated and have found them to be free of any blame so why you think your analysis of the Daily Mail and Daily Express gives you a better insight into the facts is frankly pretty bizarre.

Oh goody the report button, team McCann true to form decide the best way to deal with awkward questions is to shut down the debate.

FFS exoticfruit. It is a threat about allocation of resources. You hear all the time about any tax payer funded organisation cutting costs. My point is not aimed personally at the McCanns. It is just why do they get a full 2 year review on the case ( not an investigation into the case ) when others don't. That is how they got the new leads the allegedly have.

If the same thing was done for others like Ben ( can't remember his name!- that shows how well his case is published)

Why should I be ashamed of myself for asking questions about how the money is being spent.

And you can have empathy for someone without thinking that what is being done for them is right.

not talking about things because they make you "uncomfortable" is both childish and counter-productive. Grow up. There isn't endless money to do all of things we would like done, someone has to talk about logic and money and appropriate allocations of resources. "Give the poor people millions upon millions to make them feel better, and you're a prize bitch if you don't agree" is not very helpful.

Kiriwawa- you're getting carried away with yourself there, imagining that we're all obsessively compiling timelines.
I'm afraid the truth is far more boring!
It is widely known from the information in the public domain, that there are inconsistencies in timings and details, this is from the accounts given by the mccanns, their friends and other witnesses. Not just timings but details such as which direction people were walking in etc

And a degree of inconsistency is normal as I've said countless times. What would be really suspicious would be if everyone's accounts matched perfectly.
This is why a reconstruction would have been helpful (and entirely the expected thing to happen in such a situation )

I think the initial co operation re questions and timelines would have exonerated them and let the investigation gather pace

My point is why do you know all this? Why do you care and what do you want to happen? Two separate police forces have exonerated them completely so I'm at a loss to understand your POV unless you're basically saying that the all the professionals are wrong, and that you, with your Miss Marple hat cocked at a jaunty angle, have found evidence that they haven't uncovered despite, as the OP says, millions having been spent.

Gosh you're REALLY getting carried away with your miss Marple cocked hat bizarre fantasising!!

I am aware that the mccanns have been found to be exonerated of a role in their disappearance. The thread isn't about that . It's about whether it is justifiable for so much money and resources to be ploughed into this one case, particularly when the fact remains that a reconstruction years ago might have addressed any of the issues which have cropped up anyway.

And as for why do I care... Well, call me a spoilsport, but when shiny dave Cameron himself brings pressure to bear on the Met to plough millions of pounds and years of police time into this one already massively publicised case, and when the Met (with their proven history of systemic corruption and institutionalised racism and a desperate need to redefine themselves PR wise) pick it up and run with it ..... it just kind of strikes me as not the basis on which major decisions about resources and investigations ought to be made.

We all have our different thoughts & opinions but be aware, you musn't mention anything negative on here or it will be suspiciously pulled down.

a reconstruction would make the parents look terrible, sitting in a restaurant eating dinner while very young children slept in an unlocked apartment way out of sight and unattended to boot

it'll never happen

and janey68 I agree with all your posts

Kerry Needham's case is being ignored whilst this case is being given extra funding....this needs explained, by DC himself, least of all for the poor woman involved

Yes of course a reconstruction would have been a brilliant idea but it didn't happen. I can only assume that the Met have good reasons for reopening the case, given they're not exactly known for ploughing resources into old cases.

Bridget - I couldn't give a toss if they were middle class naice pissheads or street drinkers. There's no evidence that they were involved in their child's abduction and that's all that matters. Lick the spittle off the corners of your mouth, there's a love.

And do you all think it's women's fault if they're raped and murdered at a time when they were pissed and wearing a short skirt? Because the argument seems pretty similar.

Briget

Your actualinverse snobbery about the McCann is no more honourable than the snobbery you assume fuels peoples supposed indifference to the theoretical child of a single mum on alcopops.

They no more brought it on themselves that April Jones's mother did that day when she let her child out to play that day.

Sorry "brought it on themselves"

ah jamie, words fail me

that must be the most offensive and ignorant post I've ever seen here

Also

I think they feel more than just a bit shit.

Ssd

Why?

I was referring back Brigits post where she suggested many of us would feel differently if it were a single mum in Loret de Mar who had popped out for alcopops

I was making the point that no, actually, i would not feel differently.

And just as the McCanns should not be constantly berrated, nor should April JOnes mother.

Perhaps I did not explain very well...

April Jones was not a 3 year old left in charge of younger twins in an unlocked apartment. She was taken by someone known to her. I fail to see what her parents did wrong and I think that post is every bit as nasty as anything said about the MaCanns.

I'd love an explanation of how a parallel is drawn between women being raped and murdered, and parents leaving their children alone with no babysitter.
I won't hold my breath though

Or spell very well berated

sorry jamie thats was a bad judgement from me

kiriwana's comment about rape and muder is just as bad

do you really feel like that, girls?

that leaving very young children unattended in an unlocked room whilst you go out to dinner is on a par with letting a 5 yr old out to play or wearing a short skirt on a night out?