pap

Yeah, pretty much - although I make no pre-judgement on specific crimes. The vast majority of child abductions happen when an estranged parent does the offs with a kid he or she doesn't have custody over. Stranger abduction is much rarer. Given that the former doesn't really apply in this case, it is reasonable to conclude that when the police say they're investigating an abduction, they mean stranger abduction.

You're all being ripped off if that's the case. Bear and Tokyo turning down "cash money" as well? Madness.

Oh, FFS - Super Michael - when did this happen? More importantly, where are these bastards getting the money to employ them all? I thought we were in difficult financial times, not the sort of governmental golden age where they can chuck everyone ( except me and you ) cash to be a plant. Has the UK borrowed from Wonga or something?

You're alright, RonManager. Don't mind a bit of banter from anonymous folk. I do wonder "who the f**k are you?" when people are really giving it, tho'.

?

I wonder if Paul Van Komen gets called Gandalf behind his back. I like their style. Hire a proper geek.

Sick is behind the times according to Juvenile Unit #1.

Coding does set you free, Java or otherwise. My major client is quite "proper", but they don't really give a toss what their programmers look like, which is just as well in my case. Seen the same thing to differing degrees all over IT.

True story. We interviewed a bloke with the wrong surname. We asked him about it, and he said "oh yeah, I had a row with my Dad so I changed my name".

Don't dis Depeche Mode unfairly, Deano6. They sung "Reach out and touch faith". Don't saddle them with this boll*cks

It's understandable, but it's just so damn wordy. I reckon this how half of these buzzwords and phrases get started. Someone looking for a point of difference which sadly enough, everyone else copies. "Ducks in a row" would actually be quite amusing if you'd only ever heard it once.

Blimey. You waste one of your 3 a day on that? Selective quoting. That'd be fair enough if I'd not provided the link to both the site and the document. It'd also be fair enough if you grasped the part you quoted. Whatever. I think it is pretty clear from the text that the Met has treated this as an abduction from day one. The remit says so, the Met chief is quoted as saying so. Unless this is a very nifty piece of media rope-a-doping, I think we can assume that an abduction is what is being investigated.

Publicly, Operation Grange always assumed abduction. Only discovered this today, but check this link out:- http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434 Linked is a document entitled "Remit of investigation" - word format. This paragraph here makes it pretty clear that abduction is the only thing in the investigation's remit:- It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Our place can be broadly divided into do-ers and say-ers. All the do-ers have been around donkey's years. The say-ers are lucky to last a few years, if that. It's only really people who are sharp political operators that manage to make a long-term career out of it. It'd be one of my points of difference with Ed Miliband. He goes on about the privileged few earning £150K+. It is a lot of money, but it's damn hard to keep commanding that in most corporate environments, even if you do have skill with the blame-cannon.

Four out of four.

Yeah, it hits a load of stuff that people will identify with. When Peter starts telling the truth and speaks of having five or six different managers, I thought "that's my life right there". I find myself using buzzwords. The appropriate amount of self-loathing ensues when I do.

I dislike "if you could just go ahead and...", which is very much in the "going forward" school. US managers say it all the time. I'd rather just be told what to do. "Level-set" is another new one which annoys.

Too many. I've heard "annual leave", "close of play", "drill down", "expectations", "going forward", "heads up", "issues" ( very recent ), "leverage", "take this offline", "paradigm shift" and "workshop". The movie Office Space continues to ascend my all-time charts, not because it is a particularly amazing film, but because it accurately reflects office life in a big corp. It gets funnier the longer I'm employed.

Take a look at this article. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/metropolitan-police-commissioner-defends-portuguese-police-handling-of-madeleine-mcca.1382524843 The chief of the Met seems pretty clear on the scope of the investigation. Key quote:-

Some friends of mine used to organise legal raves. The best I ever went to was under London Bridge station. Remember, it's not a rave without a bearded 60-something throwing shapes.

I was shocked to learn that 600,000 EU migrants are economically inactive. However, of those, only 60,000 are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. There are a lot of students in that number. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10375358/True-scale-of-European-immigration.html Claiming for child benefit for kids abroad has been going on for yonks. There were similar stories doing the rounds in Ireland at the height of their financial crisis.

A dilemma, but not of the moral kind. Would you rather poo a bong or smoke a poo? I was asked this last night, along with many other either-or questions.

On the contrary, my good man - ambiguity and contradiction are at the heart of most issues. One explanation has physical evidence to support it and enough inconsistencies in witness statements to suggest a degree of collusion amongst the Tapas crowd. The accepted explanation has no physical evidence to back it up, and for several years was entirely predicated on the account of one woman, Jane Tanner, who actually saw another father returning his child from the creche. There was no physical sign of a break-in (despite initial reports that the shutters had been jemmied), no physical evidence to suggest that anyone but the McCanns and their friends ever entered the apartment. A cadaver dog reacted positively, despite the fact that there had been no recorded deaths in the apartment in question. It also reacted to a car, hired fifteen days after the incident is supposed to have taken place. DNA evidence was collected, some of which matched 10 out of the 19 required markers, another which matched 15 of the required markers. The latter would have been enough to bring charges had the events played out in the UK. Kate McCann, with a solicitor present, failed to answer 48 of the 49 questions posed to her by the PJ - when many of those questions could have helped immeasurably in the search for a missing child. As has been said, by myself and others, this case is very odd. I don't have black and white answers, but I do have some serious misgivings about the way that the case has been handled, particularly after it was transferred to the UK.

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. If you have the heir to the throne releasing statements in support of the McCanns, don't you think that suggests that the result is a foregone conclusion?

I doubt very much they'd be getting the likes of Sir Richard Branson and HRH The Prince of Wales to release statements in support of the McCanns if they were treating them as suspects.