2007-10-15 23:28:48 · 8 answers · asked by snaffle 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
If it's press leaks - does that count as we choose not to beleive the papers. Obviously we only have their words that these 'leaks' are coming from PJ.
LOL Justme - I've got nothing better to do today :))
2007-10-15 23:56:18 · update #1
i think its pseudo-racism, if it were indian or turkish police it would be even worse, british people seem to think other countries can't do a good job at something, because they are so amazing, when the fact is, they simply have a different system
2007-10-15 23:40:53 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Horrible 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because apparently accusing and making speculation about the PJ is acceptable. Funny how so many people have the PJ of being guilty of framing them, leaking, screwing up everything yet I have yet to see this proven in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty right? It apparently only applies to the McCanns. I have yet to see any solid evidence that shows the other copper was a drunk. Seems like an accusation to me.
2007-10-15 23:55:31 · answer #2 · answered by Ladybugs77 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The PJ themselves have admitted that a fresh search of the lake & around the resort has to be conducted again as the one conducted earlier "was not extensive enough".
How on earth can a search by the Police for a missing child not be extensive enough???
2007-10-15 23:43:41 · answer #3 · answered by Faith 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Early reports that they had not secured the area from which Madeleine went missing made me question their competence. Reported and repeted leaks from the PJ ever since confirm that they are not a competent police force. I don't think I've ever heard of so many leaks in a police force before - it's like a sieve!!
2007-10-15 23:40:27 · answer #4 · answered by Skidoo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It started with the drunken copper and continues with leaks to the press,making murat arguido then the parents,so much "evidence"and yet still no charges.
2007-10-15 23:46:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mythbusters proved the toothbrush one to be incorrect, in addition they proved the piece of paper one to be incorrect (with a huge sufficient piece of paper) and confident in addition they proved a ducks quack does certainly echo, this is barely complicated to detect
2016-10-09 08:11:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they are doing a very Good job despite all the obstructions being put in their way by the maccanns and company.
I see you are still waiting there snaffel for a half decent answer, dont hold your breath
2007-10-15 23:35:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I love my PJ's.
2007-10-16 15:58:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋