The parents released a photo of Madeleine in full make up..she is now known as Maddie Lolita….her parents STILL refuse to return to Portugal for a reconstruction and STILL refuse to answer police questions…they do however seem to be very happy living from a fraudulent fund supplied by their dead daughter.. Head of CEOP had nothing to say on the choice of photograph by the McCanns.
A search of Google reveals little, if you're not into indie music!
The problem is we have these quasi-governmental organisations that do two thirds of F-All, backed up by advocacy "charities" that do little other than pay the wages of their employees -hardly anybody benefits from their alleged efforts.
In an interview with the BBC, councillor Malcolm King, a former member of the CEOP advisory board, said there seemed to have been "a campaign in the Home Office for a long time now to make CEOP as ineffective as possible".
Breaking news tonight that the eloquent self publicist Jim Gamble has resigned over the future of the Child Exploitation Online Protection Agency (CEOP).
This is the same Deputy Chief Constable Gamble who is so committed to CEOP that he has applied (unsuccessfully obviously) for at least one chief constable's job elsewhere.
CEOP does a good job but the case for making it part of a police owned National Crime Agency is pretty sound.
And of course Mr Gamble has not really resigned - he is actually retiring on a full final salary gold plated index linked pension.
My prediction is that before long he will reappear in some kind of consultancy or non executive director capacity in the private sector - maybe even Facebook will make an offer?
As previously covered on this blog the Chief Executive of CEOP, Mr Jim Gamble, resigned the night before the Home Secretary's speech to her party conference.
Mr Gamble's supporters (including the parents of Madeleine McCann) have described his loss as an enormous blow to the cause of child protection.
He has not been giving interviews but has clearly let it be known through his supporters that he has resigned out of principle, because of his opposition to CEOP becoming part of the new National Crime Agency. The timing was political.
Buried in the announcement of his resignation was confirmation that he will in fact stay on as chief executive for a further four months. Why? Presumably if he thinks the Home Secretary's decision is so disasterous that he felt compelled to resign on the eve of her speech, then he would be leaving straight away.
I am sure that his pension situation would not have been affected whether he went straight away or stayed on for more four months?