The game continues

1. Introduction

Now that the Maddie case has escaped a planned death and is to continue we thought this week to do a very short post.

We will just say a few words - so unlike us! - about Operation Grange and then help it get on along by simply publishing a tweet and a comment.

2. The funding continues

So Grange continues.

After £100,000 because of compelling evidence and £85,000 because of a key witness, Operation Grange has now been given an extra £154,000.

That totals £339,000 since Whitehall took control of things. Quite a significant amount in these times of crisis and uncertainty.

One must ask 2 questions.

First, is why such a high figure when compared with the previous two?

Second, why not a round number (ending in a 0 or a 5) but such a specific quantity? One must wonder what substantiated the math that led up to this precise figure.

As we said in the comments on previous post, information must be allowed to settle before one is able to extract valid conclusions from it, however the first conclusion that can be taken immediately is this: the Bilton/Gamble offensive for archival (AKA as a BBC documentary) has been put in its rightful place: flushed down the toilet.

Not only has it surpassed its validation date beyond rotting, as it seems Whitehall is clearly stating it is to be ignored completely.

Or, in other words, Whitehall is saying that it is not convinced that the Portuguese investigation has nothing really - so it must have something - nor that Operation Grange is a “nothing-burger” - so it is something.

What is also important, is that with the flushing of this... thing, it means that to continue to pursue archival - as we are certain the other side will continue to try - they will have to come up with a new product.

That means a new plot and new actors. From where we stand, it seems the sources for either are starting to be scarce. 

Or are we going to see Gamble, Sutton, Murat, Stephenson and Foy again saying the same thing all over again?

Wouldn’t that just be a little too embarrassing even for the shameless?

As a first reaction, we would say Whitehall have given Grange more money to find the truth, not to help archive.

3. The Tweet

https://mobile.twitter.com/pennygeer/status/726779313056583680

“penelope @pennygeer
Kate McCann returns to where Madeleine disappeared to hunt for answers (link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccann-returns-madeleine-disappeared-7871484#ICID=sharebar_twitter) mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/k…
3:20 PM · May 1, 2016”

“penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer Mmmm! Mark Warner`s holiday centres were used as knocking shops when Maddie went missing, hence the ban on kids in many of their”

“penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer restaurants, as the adults would openly wife-swap during the evenings! We went there by mistake (thanks to lastminute”

“penelope @pennygeer·May 1, 2016
@pennygeer .com) and even tubby old me spent the week trying to evade the randy upper-class men!”

4. The comment

A comment we received and replied in our post “Paedo v Nepio”:

“Unknown 25 Sep 2017, 20:54:00

If I was a swinger (and I'm not) I wouldn't take the kids along, in the first place. While realising that there would be a bit of a stink, if discovered, it hardly compares with the enormous amount of time, money and scandal that his case has generated so far, so I don't buy into this theory, there has to be something more or someone didn't play by the rules.”

Our reply:

“Textusa 26 Sep 2017, 23:31:00

Unknown,

Thank you for your comment.

Firstly, we find it fascinating how some people – we’re not only speaking about you – say they are not swingers, that they have never crossed paths with such a lifestyle yet are able to postulate with absolute certainty about what swingers would or would not do.

We have talked with some swingers (or some swingers have talked to us) and from what we have been told, our scenario is not only plausible but very likely.

Yes, we have talked to swingers. They are not monsters or sick depraved people with serious mental problems but absolutely normal people who have chosen, out of free will, a certain lifestyle.

Secondly, one cannot say “if it was me…” and have that constitute a certainty because what is relevant is not what one thinks one would do but what the circumstances were which made people to act the way they did. To say “if it was me…” to substantiate a conclusion about the Maddie case, then one must assume that whoever says that is someone who is willing to lie about the death of their own child, because that is what happened with McCanns. To say “if it was me…” is to establish a plausible comparison between oneself and the McCanns.

If a large group of people of the age of OC guests were on holiday with no children in sight, wouldn't that look strange?

Would it not draw unwanted attention, rather than be seen as ordinary families on holiday?

Children would not be involved in these activities. Children would not be at risk in any way.

Children were taken care of by the unusual number of nannies present at the time, who we believe were hired for that exact purpose.

It seems you totally disagree fully with those who believe paedophilia was at the heart of this holiday, because how likely is it that a large number families would meet to share their very young children for such an odious purposes?

And governments of different political parties would cover up such activity, given that it was recent and not historical child abuse?

We suggest you read our following posts:

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-fms.html

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/02/swinging-evidence.html”

Besides the 2 posts mentioned above, we would also recommend the reading of our post “The Best Answer?” when swinging was mentioned, not by Barra da Costa, before the PJ Files were released.